Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Mathis v. Island Creek Coal Co, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Lonnie Mathis Jr. sought black lung benefits from the Department of Labor. An administrative law judge denied the benefits and the Benefits Review Board affirmed that denial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also affirmed, finding that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and without legal error. The court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately briefed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Mathis v. Island Creek Coal Co, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Lonnie Mathis Jr. sought black lung benefits from the Department of Labor. An administrative law judge denied the benefits and the Benefits Review Board affirmed that denial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also affirmed, finding that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and without legal error. The court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately briefed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-05-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-2380

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lonnie Mathis Jr. sought black lung benefits from the Department of Labor. An administrative law judge denied the benefits and the Benefits Review Board affirmed that denial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also affirmed, finding that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and without legal error. The court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately briefed.

    Copyright:

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

    Mathis v. Island Creek Coal Co, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Lonnie Mathis Jr. sought black lung benefits from the Department of Labor. An administrative law judge denied the benefits and the Benefits Review Board affirmed that denial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also affirmed, finding that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and without legal error. The court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately briefed.

    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. 01-2380

    LONNIE MATHIS, JR.,


    Petitioner,
    versus
    ISLAND CREEK 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.


    (01-210-BLA)

    Submitted:

    April 22, 2002

    Decided:

    May 29, 2002

    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Roger D. Forman, FORMAN & CRANE, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia,
    for Petitioner. William S. Mattingly, Ashley M. Harman, 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:
    Lonnie Mathis, Jr., 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.A. 901-945
    (West 1986 & Supp. 2001).

    Our review of the record discloses that

    the Boards decision is based upon substantial evidence and is


    without reversible error.
    of the Board.

    See Mathis v. Island Creek Coal Co., No. 01-210-BLA

    (BRB Oct. 30, 2001).


    facts

    and

    materials

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like