Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Westmoreland Coal Company, Incorporated v. DOWCP, 12-2342 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-2342 Visitors: 81
Filed: Sep. 18, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2342 WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; CARL RAMEY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (11-0807-BLA) Submitted: July 29, 2013 Decided: September 18, 2013 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul E. Frampton, Thomas
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2342 WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; CARL RAMEY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (11-0807-BLA) Submitted: July 29, 2013 Decided: September 18, 2013 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul E. Frampton, Thomas M. Hancock, BOWLES RICE LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph E. Wolfe, Ryan C. Gilligan, WOLFE, WILLIAMS, RUTHERFORD & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for Respondent Carl Ramey. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Westmoreland Coal Company petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s (“Board”) decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) grant of benefits to former employee Carl Ramey under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2006). Our review of the record reveals that the ALJ’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. Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, No. 11-0807-BLA (Aug. 31, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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