Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

D.M. v. Gopher Mining Company, 08-1088 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1088 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 28, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1088 D.M., Petitioner, v. GOPHER MINING COMPANY; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS’ PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0155-BLA) Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 28, 2008 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. D.M., Petiti
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1088 D.M., Petitioner, v. GOPHER MINING COMPANY; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS’ PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0155-BLA) Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 28, 2008 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. D.M., Petitioner Pro Se. Francesca Tan, Kathy Lynn Snyder, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Helen Hart Cox, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Betty English, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Patricia May Nece, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: D.M. 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 deny the petition for the reasons stated by the Board. D.M. v. Gopher Mining Co., No. 07-0155-BLA (Aug. 29, 2007). 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. PETITION DENIED - 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