Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sexton v. Arch of WV Apogee, 00-1295 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1295 Visitors: 28
Filed: Sep. 11, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1295 PAUL M. SEXTON, Petitioner, versus ARCH OF WEST VIRGINIA/APOGEE COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRO- GRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (BLA-99-0446) Submitted: August 22, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul M. Sex
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1295 PAUL M. SEXTON, Petitioner, versus ARCH OF WEST VIRGINIA/APOGEE COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRO- GRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (BLA-99-0446) Submitted: August 22, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul M. Sexton, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Jeffrey Steven Goldberg, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Paul M. Sexton 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. 2000). 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 Sexton v. Arch of WV/Apogee Coal Co., No. BLA-99-0446 (BRB Jan. 28, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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