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)
14-2064•Nbl Coal Company, Incorporated; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
14-2064Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 1, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2064
NBL COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Petitioners,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; TROY A. MOORE,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(14-0036 BLA)
Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: June 1, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John R. Sigmond, Nathaniel D. Moore, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE,
Bristol, Tennessee, for Petitioners. M. Patricia Smith,
Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Sean
G. Bajkowski, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Barry H. Joyner,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Joseph E.
Wolfe, WOLFE WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for
Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
NBL 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 Troy A.
Moore 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. NBL Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’
Comp. Programs, No. 14-0036 BLA (B.R.B. Aug. 7, 2014). 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.