Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Yates v. Virginia Pocahontas, 02-1249 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1249 Visitors: 67
Filed: Aug. 15, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1249 EUGENE YATES, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; VIRGINIA POCAHONTAS COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (01-555-BLA) Submitted: July 31, 2002 Decided: August 15, 2002 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1249 EUGENE YATES, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; VIRGINIA POCAHONTAS COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (01-555-BLA) Submitted: July 31, 2002 Decided: August 15, 2002 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Yates, Petitioner Pro Se. Michelle Seyman Gerdano, Patricia May Nece, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Kathy Lyn Snyder, Ashley Marie Harman, JACKSON & KELLY, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eugene Yates 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. 2002). 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 Yates v. Virginia Pocahontas Coal Co., No. 01-555-BLA (B.R.B. Feb. 19, 2002). 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
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