McElroy Coal Company v. Mikel Trader

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 12-0658-BLA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999393761]. [13-2415]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-2415 Doc: 38 Filed: 07/11/2014 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2415 MCELROY COAL COMPANY; CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Petitioners, v. MIKEL C. TRADER; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (12-0658-BLA) Submitted: June 30, 2014 Decided: July 11, 2014 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioners. Heath M. Long, PAWLOWSKI, BILONICK & LONG, Ebensburg, Pennsylvania; Jeffrey Steven Goldberg, Gary K. Stearman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 13-2415 Doc: 38 Filed: 07/11/2014 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: McElroy Coal Company and Consolidation Coal Company petition 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 and the record on appeal discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. McElroy Coal Co. v. Trader, No. 12-0658-BLA (B.R.B. Sept. 24, 2013). dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?