Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Windsor Coal Company v. Huggins, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Windsor Coal Company's petition for review of an award of black lung benefits to Edgar J. Huggins. The Benefits Review Board had affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to grant Huggins benefits. The Court of Appeals found that the Board's decision was based on substantial evidence and without reversible error. As a result, the court denied the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-06-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-1999

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Windsor Coal Company's petition for review of an award of black lung benefits to Edgar J. Huggins. The Benefits Review Board had affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to grant Huggins benefits. The Court of Appeals found that the Board's decision was based on substantial evidence and without reversible error. As a result, the court denied the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views2 pages

    Windsor Coal Company v. Huggins, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Windsor Coal Company's petition for review of an award of black lung benefits to Edgar J. Huggins. The Benefits Review Board had affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to grant Huggins benefits. The Court of Appeals found that the Board's decision was based on substantial evidence and without reversible error. As a result, the court denied the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-1999

    WINDSOR COAL COMPANY,


    Petitioner,
    v.
    EDGAR J. HUGGINS; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
    PROGRAMS,
    Respondents.

    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.


    (06-0710-BLA)

    Submitted:

    May 30, 2008

    Decided:

    June 25, 2008

    Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West


    Virginia, for Petitioner. Stephen A. Sanders, APPALACHIAN CITIZENS
    LAW CENTER, Whitesburg, Kentucky; Gregory F. Jacob, Solicitor of
    Labor, Patricia M. Nece, Jeffrey S. Goldberg, UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Windsor Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review
    Boards decision and order affirming the administrative law judges
    award of black lung benefits on a claim filed by Edgar J. Huggins
    pursuant to 30 U.S.C. 901-945 (2000).

    Our review of the record

    discloses that the Boards 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.

    Windsor

    Coal Co. v. Huggins, No. 06-0710-BLA (B.R.B. Aug. 15, 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 -

    You might also like