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)
99-2594•Kester J. Meade v. Clinchfield Coal Company
99-2594Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 16, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2594
KESTER J. MEADE,
Petitioner,
versus
CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(BRB No. 98-1618-BLA)
Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kester J. Meade, Petitioner Pro Se. Harry Ashby Dickerson, PENN,
STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia; Christian P. Barber, Edward
Waldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for
Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Kester J. Meade 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.A. §§ 901-945 (West
1994 & Supp. 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 on the reasoning of the
Board. See Meade v. Clinchfield Coal Co., BRB No. 98-1618-BLA
(Oct. 18, 1999). 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.