Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hall v. Noble Coal Company, 98-2791 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2791 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2791 SHIRLEY J. HALL, Widow of George Hall, Petitioner, versus NOBLE COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED; ROYALTY SMOKELESS COAL COMPANY; DIGUM COAL COMPANY; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS PNEUMONOCONIOSIS FUND; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSA- TION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-257-BLA) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: June 9, 1999
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2791 SHIRLEY J. HALL, Widow of George Hall, Petitioner, versus NOBLE COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED; ROYALTY SMOKELESS COAL COMPANY; DIGUM COAL COMPANY; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS PNEUMONOCONIOSIS FUND; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSA- TION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-257-BLA) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: June 9, 1999 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shirley J. Hall, Petitioner Pro Se. Konstantine Keian Weld, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Vir- ginia; John Headley Shott, Sr., SHOTT, GURGANUS & WILLIAMSON, Blue- field, West Virginia; Rita A. Roppolo, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Shirley J. Hall 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. See Hall v. Noble Coal Company, BRB No. 98-257-BLA (B.R.B. Oct. 23, 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