Filed: Sep. 12, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1978 BERTHA BIAS, Widow of Cecil Bias, Petitioner, versus SHARPLES COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-650-BLA) Submitted: April 10, 2000 Decided: September 12, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger D. Form
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1978 BERTHA BIAS, Widow of Cecil Bias, Petitioner, versus SHARPLES COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-650-BLA) Submitted: April 10, 2000 Decided: September 12, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger D. Forma..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1978 BERTHA BIAS, Widow of Cecil Bias, Petitioner, versus SHARPLES COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-650-BLA) Submitted: April 10, 2000 Decided: September 12, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger D. Forman, FORMAN & CRANE, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Petitioner. William S. Mattingly, JACKSON & KELLY, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bertha Bias, widow of Cecil Bias, seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order reversing the Administrative Law Judge's decision to grant black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1999). Our review of the record confirms that the Board's conclusion that the ALJ’s decision was not based upon substantial evidence is correct and we further find that the Board’s decision is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Bias v. Sharples Coal Co., BRB No. 98-650-BLA (B.R.B. June 16, 1999). 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