St. Clair v. DOWCP

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

St. Clair v. DOWCP

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1485

PATRICIA ST. CLAIR, as personal representative of the estate of John St. Clair,

Petitioner,

versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,

Respondents.

No. 06-1628

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

Party-in-interest,

versus

PATRICIA ST. CLAIR, as personal representative of the estate of John St. Clair,

Respondent. On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (05-548-BLA)

Submitted: November 17, 2006 Decided: January 18, 2007

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia St. Clair, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Barry H. Joyner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Director. William Steele Mattingly, Ashley M. Harman, JACKSON & KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Consolidation Coal Company.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

In No. 06-1485, claimant seeks review of the Benefits

Review Board’s (“Board”) decision and order affirming the

administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of black lung benefits

pursuant to

30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945

(2000). In No. 06-1628,

Consolidation Coal Company cross-petitions for review of the

Board’s affirmance of the ALJ’s conclusion that St. Clair’s claim

for benefits was timely filed. Our review of the record discloses

that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is

without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the Board. St. Clair v. Director, OWCP, No. 05-548-BLA

(B.R.B. Mar. 28, 2006). We deny St. Clair’s motion to expedite the

appeal. 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.

AFFIRMED

- 3 -

Reference

Status
Unpublished