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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?