U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1994

Donald Williams v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Cannelton Industries, Incorporated

Donald Williams v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Cannelton Industries, Incorporated
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 28, 1994
36 F.3d 1096; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34053; 1994 WL 525147 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Donald Williams v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Cannelton Industries, Incorporated

Opinion

36 F.3d 1096

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Donald WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, United
States Department of Labor; Cannelton Industries,
Incorporated, Respondents.

No. 93-1103.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 8, 1993
Decided Sept. 28, 1994.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (91-1638-BLA)

Donald Williams, petitioner pro se.

Patricia May Nece, Karen Nancy Blank, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, DC; Mary Rich Maloy, Jackson & Kelly, Charleston, WV, for respondents.

Ben. Rev. Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Donald Williams seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. Secs. 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1992). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Williams v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 91-1638-BLA (B.R.B. Nov. 30, 1992). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

2

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.