Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bailey v. Harman Mining Co, 04-1498 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1498 Visitors: 153
Filed: Nov. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1498 ERNESTINE BAILEY, on behalf of and widow of Virgil Bailey, Petitioner, versus HARMAN MINING 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. (99-849-BLA) Submitted: October 25, 2004 Decided: November 4, 2004 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed b
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1498 ERNESTINE BAILEY, on behalf of and widow of Virgil Bailey, Petitioner, versus HARMAN MINING 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. (99-849-BLA) Submitted: October 25, 2004 Decided: November 4, 2004 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernestine Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se. Mark Elliott Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey Steven Goldberg, Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ernestine Bailey seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s (“Board”) decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-45 (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 Bailey v. Harman Mining Co., No. 99-849-BLA (BRB Apr. 9, 2004). 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