Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Vandyke and Vandyke v. DOWCP, 04-1886 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1886 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jan. 12, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1886 VANDYKE AND VANDYKE COAL COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JEARLDINE WHITED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (03-305-BLA) Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 12, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1886 VANDYKE AND VANDYKE COAL COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JEARLDINE WHITED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (03-305-BLA) Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 12, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Howard M. Radzely, Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor, Christian P. Barber, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Rita Roppolo, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Director. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioners seek review of the Benefits Review Board’s (Board) decision and order and its decision and order on reconsideration affirming the administrative law judge’s award 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 Vandyke & Vandyke Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, No. 03-305-BLA (BRB Dec. 18, 2003; May 24, 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