Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hatfield v. Hobet Mining Inc, 05-1725 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1725 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1725 EDDIE HATFIELD, Petitioner, versus HOBET MINING, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (04-645-BLA) Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Hatfield, Petitioner Pro
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1725 EDDIE HATFIELD, Petitioner, versus HOBET MINING, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (04-645-BLA) Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Hatfield, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Ashley Marie Harman, Kathy Lynn Snyder, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Michelle Seyman Gerdano, Patricia May Nece, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Helen Hart Cox, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eddie Hatfield 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 Hatfield v. Hobet Mining, Inc., No. 04-645-BLA (BRB May 26, 2005). 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