Viers v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor

Fourth Circuit

Viers v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor

37 F.3d 1497, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34941, 1994 WL 551387

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

Docket94-1324

StatusPublished

This text of 37 F.3d 1497 (Viers v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. 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

Viers v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor, 37 F.3d 1497, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34941, 1994 WL 551387 (4th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

37 F.3d 1497
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ruby VIERS, Executrix of Estate of William Underwood, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United
States Department of Labor; Norfolk & Western
Railway Company, Respondents.

No. 94-1324.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 20, 1994
Decided: Oct. 11, 1994.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (92-1350-BLA)

Ruby Viers, Petitioner Pro Se. Michael John Denney, Patricia May Nece, Rodger Pitcairn, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, 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.1994). 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. Viers v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 92-1350-BLA (B.R.B. Jan. 31, 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

37 F.3d 1497
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.

Ruby VIERS, Executrix of Estate of William Underwood, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United
States Department of Labor; Norfolk & Western
Railway Company, Respondents.

No. 94-1324.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 20, 1994
Decided: Oct. 11, 1994.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (92-1350-BLA)

Ruby Viers, Petitioner Pro Se. Michael John Denney, Patricia May Nece, Rodger Pitcairn, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, 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.1994). 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. Viers v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 92-1350-BLA (B.R.B. Jan. 31, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F.3d 1497, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 34941, 1994 WL 551387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viers-v-director-office-of-workers-compensation-programs-us-dept-of-ca4-1994.