Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Howard v. Big Grassy Creek, 00-2221 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2221 Visitors: 26
Filed: Mar. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2221 JANET L. HOWARD, Widow of Carlton E. Howard, Petitioner, versus BIG GRASSY CREEK COAL COMPANY; DLM COAL CORPORATION; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS’ PNEU- MOCONIOSIS FUND; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPART- MENT OF LABOR; DENVER A. HAWKINS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (99-1250-BLA) Submitted: January 23, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001 Bef
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2221 JANET L. HOWARD, Widow of Carlton E. Howard, Petitioner, versus BIG GRASSY CREEK COAL COMPANY; DLM COAL CORPORATION; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS’ PNEU- MOCONIOSIS FUND; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPART- MENT OF LABOR; DENVER A. HAWKINS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (99-1250-BLA) Submitted: January 23, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janet L. Howard, Petitioner Pro Se. Robert Weinberger, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia; Christian P. Barber, Jennifer U. Toth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Wash- ington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Janet L. Howard 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 Howard v. Big Grassy Creek Coal Co., BRB No. 99-1250- BLA (B.R.B. Aug. 30, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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