Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Tennant v. Consolidation Coal, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Tennant filed a claim for black lung benefits that was denied by an ALJ and affirmed by the Benefits Review Board. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, finding that it was based on substantial evidence without reversible error. The court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Tennant v. Consolidation Coal, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views2 pages
    William Tennant filed a claim for black lung benefits that was denied by an ALJ and affirmed by the Benefits Review Board. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, finding that it was based on substantial evidence without reversible error. The court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-03-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-1913

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    William Tennant filed a claim for black lung benefits that was denied by an ALJ and affirmed by the Benefits Review Board. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, finding that it was based on substantial evidence without reversible error. The court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    15 views2 pages

    Tennant v. Consolidation Coal, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Tennant filed a claim for black lung benefits that was denied by an ALJ and affirmed by the Benefits Review Board. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, finding that it was based on substantial evidence without reversible error. The court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-1913

    WILLIAM A. TENNANT,
    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.


    (01-777-BLA)

    Submitted:

    January 31, 2003

    Decided:

    March 12, 2003

    Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert F. Cohen, Jr., COHEN, ABATE & COHEN, L.C., Morgantown, West
    Virginia, for Petitioner. William S. Mattingly, JACKSON & KELLY,
    P.L.L.C., Morgantown, West Virginia, for Respondents.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    William A. Tennant 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 upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board.

    See Tennant

    v. Consolidation Coal Co., No. 01-777-BLA (BRB June 24, 2002).

    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