Franklin D. Hudnall v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Bethenergy Mines, Incorporated

Fourth Circuit

Franklin D. Hudnall v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Bethenergy Mines, Incorporated

37 F.3d 1494, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34839, 1994 WL 543576

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 1994

Docket93-2498

StatusPublished

This text of 37 F.3d 1494 (Franklin D. Hudnall v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Bethenergy Mines, Incorporated) 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

Franklin D. Hudnall v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Bethenergy Mines, Incorporated, 37 F.3d 1494, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34839, 1994 WL 543576 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

37 F.3d 1494
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Franklin D. HUDNALL, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; BETHENERGY MINES,
INCORPORATED, Respondents.

No. 93-2498.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 1994
Decided Oct. 6, 1994.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (91-556-BLA)

Franklin D. Hudnall, Petitioner Pro Se.

Patricia May Nece, C. William Mangum, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC; Mary Rich Maloy, Jackson & Kelly, Charleston, WV, for Respondents.

Ben. Rev. Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS and CHAPMAN, Senior 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.1993). 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. Hudnall v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 91-556-BLA (B.R.B. Oct. 29, 1993). 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

37 F.3d 1494
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.

Franklin D. HUDNALL, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; BETHENERGY MINES,
INCORPORATED, Respondents.

No. 93-2498.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 1994
Decided Oct. 6, 1994.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (91-556-BLA)

Franklin D. Hudnall, Petitioner Pro Se.

Patricia May Nece, C. William Mangum, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC; Mary Rich Maloy, Jackson & Kelly, Charleston, WV, for Respondents.

Ben. Rev. Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS and CHAPMAN, Senior 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.1993). 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. Hudnall v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 91-556-BLA (B.R.B. Oct. 29, 1993). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F.3d 1494, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34839, 1994 WL 543576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-d-hudnall-v-director-office-of-workers-co-ca4-1994.