Fred Meade v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Island Creek Coal Company
This text of 77 F.3d 469 (Fred Meade v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Island Creek Coal Company) 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.
Opinion
77 F.3d 469
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Fred MEADE, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Island Creek Coal
Company, Respondents.
No. 94-2585.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 26, 1996.
Decided Feb. 16, 1996.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (93-1526-BLA)
Fred Meade, Petitioner Pro Se. Christian P. Barber, J. Matthew McCracken, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents.
Ben.Rev.Bd.
AFFIRMED.
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
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. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.1993). 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. Meade v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 93-1526-BLA (B.R.B. Nov. 25, 1994). 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
77 F.3d 469, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 7946, 1996 WL 67218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-meade-v-director-office-of-workers-compensation-programs-united-ca4-1996.