U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2018

Cedar Coal Company v. Pearl Barton

Cedar Coal Company v. Pearl Barton
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided May 3, 2018

Cedar Coal Company v. Pearl Barton

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1982

CEDAR COAL COMPANY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PEARL M. BARTON, survivor of CLARENCE E. BARTON; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents - Appellees.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (16-0558 BLA)

Submitted: April 26, 2018 Decided: May 3, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark J. Grigoraci, ROBINSON & MCELWEE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Samuel B. Petsonk, MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, Charleston, West Virginia; Nicholas C. Geale, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Maia S. Fisher, Associate Solicitor, Gary K. Stearman, Rita A. Roppolo, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Cedar Coal Company seeks 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. §§ 901-944 (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. Cedar Coal Co. v. Barton, No. 16-0558 BLA (B.R.B. June 27, 2017). 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

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