Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davidson Mining Inc v. Wilcoxen, 05-1929 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1929 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 26, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1929 DAVIDSON MINING, INC., Petitioner, versus JOE R. WILCOXEN; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (04-818-BLA) Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony J. Cicconi, SHAFFER & SHAFF
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1929 DAVIDSON MINING, INC., Petitioner, versus JOE R. WILCOXEN; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (04-818-BLA) Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony J. Cicconi, SHAFFER & SHAFFER, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Roger D. Forman, FORMAN & HUBER, LC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondent Joe R. Wilcoxen. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Davidson Mining, Inc., seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s (“Board”) decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award 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 for the reasons stated by the Board. Davidson Mining, Inc. v. Wilcoxen, No. 04- 818-BLA (B.R.B. June 21, 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