Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Rudash v. DOWCP, 03-1051 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1051 Visitors: 33
Filed: Jun. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1051 ALVIE R. RUDASH, Petitioner, versus CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (02-0296-BLA) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 3, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvie R. Rudash, Petitioner Pro S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1051 ALVIE R. RUDASH, Petitioner, versus CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (02-0296-BLA) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 3, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvie R. Rudash, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Barry H. Joyner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; William Steele Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY, P.L.L.C., Morgantown, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alvie R. Rudash 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. §§ 901-945 (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 Rudash v. DOWCP, No. 02-0296-BLA (BRB Nov. 8, 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