Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sparks v. Clinchfield Coal Co, 97-2113 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-2113 Visitors: 65
Filed: Jul. 16, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2113 JOE L. SPARKS, Petitioner, versus CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-486-BLA) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe L. Sparks, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2113 JOE L. SPARKS, Petitioner, versus CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-486-BLA) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe L. Sparks, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN, STUART, ESKRIDGE & JONES, Abingdon, Virginia; Cathryn Celeste Helm, Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joe L. Sparks seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s de- cision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1997). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Sparks v. Clinchfield Coal Co., BRB No. 96-486-BLA, (B.R.B. July 23, 1997). 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