Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Skidmore v. DOWCP, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Charles O. Skidmore sought review of the Benefits Review Board's denial of his claim for black lung benefits. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, finding that it was based on substantial evidence and without reversible error. The court adopted the Board's reasoning and affirmed its ruling that Skidmore was not entitled to black lung benefits under applicable law. The court also determined that oral arguments were not necessary to aid in its decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-05-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-1080

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Charles O. Skidmore sought review of the Benefits Review Board's denial of his claim for black lung benefits. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, finding that it was based on substantial evidence and without reversible error. The court adopted the Board's reasoning and affirmed its ruling that Skidmore was not entitled to black lung benefits under applicable law. The court also determined that oral arguments were not necessary to aid in its decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Skidmore v. DOWCP, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles O. Skidmore sought review of the Benefits Review Board's denial of his claim for black lung benefits. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, finding that it was based on substantial evidence and without reversible error. The court adopted the Board's reasoning and affirmed its ruling that Skidmore was not entitled to black lung benefits under applicable law. The court also determined that oral arguments were not necessary to aid in its decision.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 06-1080

    CHARLES O. SKIDMORE,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    DIRECTOR,
    PROGRAMS,

    OFFICE

    OF

    WORKERS

    COMPENSATION
    Respondent.

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


    (No. 05-552-BLA)

    Submitted: May 16, 2006

    Decided: May 22, 2006

    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles O. Skidmore, Petitioner Pro Se. Jeffrey Steven Goldberg,


    Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington,
    D.C., for Respondent.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles O. Skidmore seeks review of the Benefits Review
    Boards decision and order affirming the administrative law judges
    denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. 901-945
    (2000).

    Our review of the record discloses that the Boards

    decision

    is

    based

    reversible error.
    Board.

    upon

    substantial

    evidence

    and

    is

    without

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

    See Skidmore v. Dir., Office of Workers Comp. Prog., No.

    05-552-BLA (BRB Nov. 30, 2005).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like