Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Surber v. Cannelton Industries, 00-2191 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2191 Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2191 GLENN SURBER, Petitioner, versus CANNELTON INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (99-1153-BLA) Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S. F. Raymond Smith, RUN
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2191 GLENN SURBER, Petitioner, versus CANNELTON INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (99-1153-BLA) Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S. F. Raymond Smith, RUNDLE & RUNDLE, L.C., Pineville, West Vir- ginia, for Petitioner. Mary Rich Maloy, JACKSON & KELLY, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Glen Surber seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s deci- sion 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 revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Surber v. Cannelton Industries, Inc., BRB No. 99-1153-BLA, (B.R.B. Aug. 9, 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