Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wimmer v. Jewell Ridge Coal Co, 96-1959 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1959 Visitors: 80
Filed: Feb. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1959 BILL WIMMER, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JEWELL RIDGE COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-0503-BLA) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bill
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1959 BILL WIMMER, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JEWELL RIDGE COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-0503-BLA) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bill Wimmer, Petitioner Pro Se. Rita A. Roppolo, Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. ยงยง 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1996). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Wimmer v. Jewell Ridge Coal Co., No. 96-0503-BLA (B.R.B. June 20, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer