NBL Coal Company, Incorporated v. DOWCP
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 14-0036 BLA. Copies to all parties and the agency.[999593374]. [14-2064]
Appeal: 14-2064
Doc: 37
Filed: 06/01/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2064
NBL COAL
COMPANY,
COMPANY,
INCORPORATED;
LIBERTY
MUTUAL
INSURANCE
Petitioners,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; TROY A. MOORE,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(14-0036 BLA)
Submitted:
April 28, 2015
Decided:
June 1, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John R. Sigmond, Nathaniel D. Moore, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE,
Bristol, Tennessee, for Petitioners.
M. Patricia Smith,
Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Sean
G. Bajkowski, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Barry H. Joyner,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Joseph E.
Wolfe, WOLFE WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for
Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-2064
Doc: 37
Filed: 06/01/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
NBL
Board’s
Coal
Company
decision
and
seeks
order
review
of
affirming
the
the
Benefits
Review
administrative
law
judge’s award of black lung benefits on a claim filed by Troy A.
Moore pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2012).
Our review of
the record 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.
Comp.
Programs,
dispense
with
contentions
are
No.
oral
NBL Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’
14-0036
BLA
argument
adequately
(B.R.B.
because
presented
in
Aug.
the
the
7,
facts
2014).
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?