Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • McIntire v. Consolidation Coal, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    Donald McIntire petitioned for review of the denial of his claim for black lung benefits. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Benefits Review Board, which had affirmed the administrative law judge's denial of benefits. The Court found the Board's decision was based on substantial evidence and without reversible error. The Court affirmed based on the reasoning of the Board, which had upheld the administrative law judge's determination that McIntire was not entitled to black lung benefits.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-01-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-1592

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Donald McIntire petitioned for review of the denial of his claim for black lung benefits. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Benefits Review Board, which had affirmed the administrative law judge's denial of benefits. The Court found the Board's decision was based on substantial evidence and without reversible error. The Court affirmed based on the reasoning of the Board, which had upheld the administrative law judge's determination that McIntire was not entitled to black lung benefits.

    Copyright:

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

    McIntire v. Consolidation Coal, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Donald McIntire petitioned for review of the denial of his claim for black lung benefits. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Benefits Review Board, which had affirmed the administrative law judge's denial of benefits. The Court found the Board's decision was based on substantial evidence and without reversible error. The Court affirmed based on the reasoning of the Board, which had upheld the administrative law judge's determination that McIntire was not entitled to black lung benefits.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 97-1592

    DONALD L. MCINTIRE, SR.,


    Petitioner,
    versus
    CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE
    OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
    STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
    Respondents.

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


    (96-1143-BLA)
    Submitted:

    January 15, 1998

    Decided:

    January 26, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,* Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Senior Judge Butzner did not participate in consideration of


    this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant
    to 28 U.S.C. 46(d).

    Donald L. McIntire, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.


    William Steele
    Mattingly, JACKSON & KELLY, Morgantown, West Virginia; Patricia May
    Nece, Dorothy L. Page, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C. for Respondents.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant 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.A. 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.
    1996). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision
    is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. McIntire v.
    Consolidation Coal Co., BRB No. 96-1143-BLA (B.R.B. Apr. 14, 1997).
    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

    You might also like