Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hughes v. DOWCP, 98-1413 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1413 Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 23, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1413 EULA S. HUGHES, Widow of Carl Hughes, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (97-0809-BLA) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eula
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1413 EULA S. HUGHES, Widow of Carl Hughes, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (97-0809-BLA) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eula S. Hughes, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Edward Wald- man, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN, STUART, ESKRIDGE & JONES, Abingdon, Virginia for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s deci- sion 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. 1995). 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. Hughes v. DOWCP, BRB No. 97-0809-BLA (B.R.B. Jan. 29, 1998). 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