Hubert Coffman v. Blackwood Fuel Company, Incorporated Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24776
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 6, 1995
Docket2085
StatusPublished

This text of 60 F.3d 821 (Hubert Coffman v. Blackwood Fuel Company, 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
Hubert Coffman v. Blackwood Fuel Company, Incorporated Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24776 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

60 F.3d 821
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Hubert COFFMAN, Petitioner,
v.
BLACKWOOD FUEL COMPANY, INCORPORATED; Director, Office of
Workers' Compensation Programs, United States
Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 94 2085.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 20, 1995.
Decided: July 6, 1995.

Hubert Coffman, appellant pro se. Daniel Robert Bieger, Copeland, Molinary & Bieger, Abingdon, VA; Rita A. Roppolo, Christian P. Barber, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, 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. Secs. 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.1993). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Coffman v. Blackwood Fuel Co., No. 93-206-BLA (B.R.B. June 29, 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.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubert-coffman-v-blackwood-fuel-company-incorporat-ca4-1995.