The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-1304•Frances E. Williams, widow of Tommy J. Wil- liams, Sr v. T & SCOAL COMPANY, Employer
00-1304Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 18, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1304
FRANCES E. WILLIAMS, widow of Tommy J. Wil-
liams, Sr.,
Petitioner,
versus
T & S COAL COMPANY, Employer; WEST VIRGINIA
COAL WORKERS’ PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, INCORPO-
RATED, Carrier; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPART-
MENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(99-371-BLA, 97-1973-BLA)
Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frances E. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Nancy Lovell Tyler, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia; Jeffrey Steven Goldberg, Christian P. Barber, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Frances E. Williams seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s
decision and orders affirming the administrative law judge’s denial
of survivor’s benefits under the Federal Coal Mine Health and
Safety Act of 1969, as amended, see 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West
1994 & Supp. 1999), and denying her motion for reconsideration.
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 Williams
v. T & S Coal Co., Nos. 99-371-BLA; 97-1973-BLA (BRB Nov. 17, 1999
& Jan. 18, 2000). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.