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)
05-2142•Sea “b” Mining Company v. Maudia Rowe, widow of Perry Rowe
05-2142Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 22, 2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2142
SEA “B” MINING COMPANY,
Petitioner,
versus
MAUDIA ROWE, widow of Perry Rowe; DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(04-950-BLA)
Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 22, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Maudia Rowe, Respondent Pro Se. Rita A. Roppolo,
Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent Director.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Sea “B” Mining Company seeks review of the Benefits
Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law
judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-
945 (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 for the reasons stated by
the Board. Rowe v. Sea “B” Mining Co., No. 04-950-BLA (BRB
Aug. 12, 2005). 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.