Consolidation Coal Company v. David Blankenship

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 11-0723 BLA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999369930].. [12-2145]

Appeal: 12-2145

Doc: 54

Filed: 06/05/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2145

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID
O.
BLANKENSHIP;
DIRECTOR,
OFFICE
OF
WORKERS’
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(11-0723-BLA)

Submitted:

May 30, 2014

Decided:

June 5, 2014

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William S. Mattingly, Amy Jo Holley, JACKSON KELLY PLLC,
Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner.
Joseph E. Wolfe,
Ryan C. Gilligan, WOLFE, WILLIAMS, RUTHERFORD & REYNOLDS,
Norton, Virginia; Sean Gregory Bajkowski, Helen Hart Cox, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2145

Doc: 54

Filed: 06/05/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Consolidation Coal Company petitions for review of the
Benefits

Review

Board’s

decision

and

order

affirming

the

administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant
to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2012).

Our review of the parties’

briefs

discloses

and

decision

is

the

record

based

reversible error.

on

upon

appeal

substantial

dispense

No.

with

contentions

are

and

the

Board’s

is

without

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review

for the reasons stated by the Board.
Blankenship,

evidence

that

11-0723

oral

Consolidation Coal Co. v.

BLA

(B.R.B.

July

26,

argument

because

the

facts

adequately

presented

in

the

2012).

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2