Arlin Murphy v. Jumacris Mining, Incorporated Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

Fourth Circuit

Arlin Murphy v. Jumacris Mining, Incorporated Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

73 F.3d 358, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40407, 1995 WL 758368

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 26, 1995

Docket95-2062

StatusPublished

This text of 73 F.3d 358 (Arlin Murphy v. Jumacris Mining, Incorporated Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arlin Murphy v. Jumacris Mining, Incorporated Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 73 F.3d 358, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40407, 1995 WL 758368 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

73 F.3d 358
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Arlin MURPHY, Petitioner,
v.
JUMACRIS MINING, INCORPORATED; Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, United States Department of
Labor, Respondents.

No. 95-2062.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 26, 1995.
Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Dec. 26, 1995.

Arlin Murphy, Petitioner Pro Se. George Lawson Partain, Logan, West Virginia; Christian P. Barber, Jennifer U. Toth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant 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.1995). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Murphy v. Jumacris Coal Co., No. 89-3073-BLA (B.R.B. Apr. 27, 1995). 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

*

Appellant's claim was for medical benefits only

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

73 F.3d 358
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) 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.

Arlin MURPHY, Petitioner,
v.
JUMACRIS MINING, INCORPORATED; Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, United States Department of
Labor, Respondents.

No. 95-2062.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 26, 1995.
Submitted Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided Dec. 26, 1995.

Arlin Murphy, Petitioner Pro Se. George Lawson Partain, Logan, West Virginia; Christian P. Barber, Jennifer U. Toth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant 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.1995). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Murphy v. Jumacris Coal Co., No. 89-3073-BLA (B.R.B. Apr. 27, 1995). 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

*

Appellant's claim was for medical benefits only

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 F.3d 358, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40407, 1995 WL 758368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arlin-murphy-v-jumacris-mining-incorporated-direct-ca4-1995.