Calvin Dunford v. Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

4 F.3d 984, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 37893, 1993 WL 343135
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 3, 1993
Docket92-2071
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 F.3d 984 (Calvin Dunford v. Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation 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
Calvin Dunford v. Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 4 F.3d 984, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 37893, 1993 WL 343135 (4th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

4 F.3d 984

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Calvin DUNFORD, Petitioner,
v.
JEWELL RIDGE COAL CORPORATION; Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, United States Department of
Labor, Respondents.

No. 92-2071.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 1993.
Decided: September 3, 1993.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (90-645-BLA)

Calvin Dunford, Petitioner Pro Se.

Timothy Ward Gresham, Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, Abingdon, Virginia; Patricia May Nece, Cathryn Celeste Helm, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Calvin Dunford 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. # 8E8E # 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1992) and denying his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decisions are based upon substantial evidence and that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Dunford v. Jewell Ridge Coal Co., No. 90-645-BLA (B.R.B. Jan. 28 & July 13, 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.

AFFIRMED

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

Related

Sea "B" Mining Company v. Dunford
188 F. App'x 191 (Fourth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 F.3d 984, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 37893, 1993 WL 343135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calvin-dunford-v-jewell-ridge-coal-corporation-dir-ca4-1993.