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)
06-1912•Clara Sue Hughes v. Clinchfield Coal Company
06-1912Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 5, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1912
CLARA SUE HUGHES,
Petitioner,
versus
CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(06-0138-BLA)
Submitted: March 19, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clara Sue Hughes, Petitioner Pro Se. Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN,
STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia; Patricia May Nece, Emily
Goldberg-Kraft, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington,
D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Clara Sue Hughes 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. §§ 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. Hughes v. Clinchfield Coal Co., No. 06-0138-BLA (B.R.B.
July 28, 2006). 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.