Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cottrell v. DOWCP, 01-1139 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1139 Visitors: 29
Filed: May 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1139 DARRELL S. COTTRELL, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (99-1317-BLA) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell S. Cottrell, Petitioner Pro Se. Christian P. Barber
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1139 DARRELL S. COTTRELL, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (99-1317-BLA) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell S. Cottrell, Petitioner Pro Se. Christian P. Barber, Barry H. Joyner, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Darrell S. Cottrell 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), and a subsequent order denying reconsid- eration. 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 Cottrell v. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, No. 99- 1317-BLA (BRB Oct. 12, Dec. 20, 2000). 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 * We have considered the recent revisions to the regulations implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act, see Regulations Implementing the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended; 65 Fed. Reg. 79,919 (Dec. 20, 2000), and have deter- mined that the revisions do not affect the outcome of this case. 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