Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
01-1030•Kermit H. Bender v. Talon Resources, Incorporated
01-1030Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit18.04.2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1030
KERMIT H. BENDER,
Petitioner,
versus
TALON RESOURCES, INCORPORATED; WEST VIRGINIA
COAL WORKERS’ PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND; DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(00-172-BLA, 99-440-BLA)
Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kermit H. Bender, Petitioner Pro Se. Robert Weinberger, Senior As-
sistant Attorney General, Konstantine Keian Weld, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia;
Patricia May Nece, Timothy S. Williams, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* We have considered the recent revisions to the regulations
implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act, see Regulations Imple-
menting the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as
amended; 65 Fed. Reg. 79919 (December 20, 2000), and have deter-
mined that the revisions do not affect the outcome of this case.
2
PER CURIAM:
Kermit H. Bender 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. 2000). 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.* See Bender v. Talon Resources, Inc., Nos. 00-172-BLA; 99-
440-BLA (Nov. 21, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.