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)
13-1042•Consolidation Coal Company v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
13-1042Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 16, 2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1042
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JACK CARROLL LAKE,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(11-0467-BLA)
Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 16, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West
Virginia, for Petitioner. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of
Labor, Rae Ellen Frank James, Associate Solicitor, Sean G.
Bajkowski, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Jeffrey S.
Goldberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.;
Heath M. Long, PAWLOWSKI, BILONICK & LONG, Ebensburg,
Pennsylvania, for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Consolidation Coal Company seeks review of the
Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the
administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits on a
claim filed by Jack C. Lake pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945
(2012). 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. Consolidation Coal Co. v.
Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, No. 11-0467-BLA (B.R.B.
Apr. 16, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this 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.