Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gibson v. DOWCP, 98-1796 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1796 Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1796 BILLY J. GIBSON, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRO- GRAMS, UNITED STATES OF LABOR; BULLION HOLLOW ENTERPRISES, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order for the Benefits Review Board. (97-1127) Submitted: November 30, 1998 Decided: December 21, 1998 Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy J. Gib
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1796 BILLY J. GIBSON, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRO- GRAMS, UNITED STATES OF LABOR; BULLION HOLLOW ENTERPRISES, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order for the Benefits Review Board. (97-1127) Submitted: November 30, 1998 Decided: December 21, 1998 Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy J. Gibson, Petitioner Pro Se. James Byron Leonard, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Arlington, Virginia; Michael Francis Blair, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Respon- dents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Billy Gibson 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. 1998). 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. See Gibson v. DOWCP, No. 97-1127 (B.R.B. May 12, 1998). We dis- pense 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