Filed: Mar. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1016 ROY L. EVANS, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRO- GRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-291-BLA) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy L. Evans, Petitioner Pro Se. Chri
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1016 ROY L. EVANS, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRO- GRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-291-BLA) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy L. Evans, Petitioner Pro Se. Chris..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1016 ROY L. EVANS, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRO- GRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-291-BLA) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy L. Evans, Petitioner Pro Se. Christian P. Barber, Jennifer U. Toth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 deci- sion is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Evans v. Director, OWCP, No. 98-291-BLA (BRB Nov. 5, 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