Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Glamorgan Coal Corp v. Marshall, 08-2222 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-2222 Visitors: 67
Filed: Nov. 13, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2222 GLAMORGAN COAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BANNER E. MARSHALL, deceased, by Beulah Marshall, widow; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0960-BLA) Submitted: October 21, 2009 Decided: November 13, 2009 Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy W. Gresham, Anne M
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2222 GLAMORGAN COAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BANNER E. MARSHALL, deceased, by Beulah Marshall, widow; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0960-BLA) Submitted: October 21, 2009 Decided: November 13, 2009 Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy W. Gresham, Anne Musgrove Rife, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph E. Wolfe, Ryan C. Gilligan, WOLFE, WILLIAMS, RUTHERFORD & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia; Carol De Deo, Deputy Solicitor, Rae Ellen Frank James, Associate Solicitor, Sean G. Bajkowski, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Jeffrey S. Goldberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Glamorgan Coal Corporation seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2006). 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 review for the reasons stated by the Board. Glamorgan Coal Corp. v. Marshall, No. 07-0960-BLA (B.R.B. Aug. 29, 2008). 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