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)
10-1860•Indian Mountain Coal Company; Old Republic Insurance Company v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs; Emily Bolling
10-1860Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 8, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1860
INDIAN MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Petitioners,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; EMILY
BOLLING,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(09-0180-BLA)
Submitted: March 29, 2011 Decided: April 8, 2011
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor
of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Patricia M.
Nece, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Barry H. Joyner, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Joseph E. Wolfe,
Ryan C. Gilligan, WOLFE, WILLIAMS, RUTHERFORD & REYNOLDS,
Norton, Virginia, for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Indian Mountain Coal Company and Old Republic
Insurance Company seek 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
(2006). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s
decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review
for the reasons stated by the Board. Indian Mountain Coal
Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, No.
09-0180-BLA (BRB Sept. 23, 2009). 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.
PETITION DENIED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.