Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lockhart v. DOWCP, 97-2475 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-2475 Visitors: 32
Filed: Oct. 14, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2475 ROSA K. LOCKHART, Widow of Donald Lockhart, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-1451-BLA) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ro
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2475 ROSA K. LOCKHART, Widow of Donald Lockhart, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-1451-BLA) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rosa K. Lockhart, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Christian P. Barber, Helen Hart Cox, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Ronald Gurka, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Arlington, Virginia; Martin Ellison Hall, Natalie D. Brown, JACKSON & KELLY, Lexington, Kentucky, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1998). 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. Lockhart v. DOWCP, BRB No. 96-1451-BLA (B.R.B. Aug. 27, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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