Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. DOWCP

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 13-0313-BLA,13-0314-BLA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999532832]. Mailed to: Steven Breeskin. [14-1549]

Appeal: 14-1549

Doc: 37

Filed: 02/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1549

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; RIFE & HALL COAL COMPANY,
Petitioners,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; CAROLYN JUSTUS, o/b/o and widow
of Greley Justus,
Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(13-0313-BLA; 13-0314-BLA)

Submitted:

January 30, 2015

Before DUNCAN and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

February 23, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John R. Sigmond, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Bristol, Tennessee,
for Petitioners.
Joseph E. Wolfe, WOLFE WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS,
Norton, Virginia; Sean Gregory Bajkowski, Sarah Marie Hurley,
Richard Anthony Seid, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1549

Doc: 37

Filed: 02/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Rife & Hall Coal
Company seek review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and
order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of living
miner benefits to former employee Greley Justus and survivor’s
benefits to Justus’ surviving spouse, Carolyn Justus, under the
Black
review

Lung
of

Benefits
the

Act,

record

30

U.S.C.

discloses

that

§§ 901-945
the

(2012).

Board’s

decision

Our
is

based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons
stated by the Board.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dir., Office of

Workers’ Comp. Programs, Nos. 13-0313-BLA & 13-0314-BLA (B.R.B.
Apr. 9, 2014).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

2