Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Island Creek Coal Company v. Larry Hargett, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Island Creek Coal Company's petition for review of a Benefits Review Board decision awarding black lung benefits to Larry F. Hargett. The administrative law judge's decision was based on substantial evidence and did not contain reversible error. The Board's decision upholding the award of benefits was also proper. The Court dispensed with oral argument because the issues and facts were adequately presented in the materials before the Court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-06-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-1193

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Island Creek Coal Company's petition for review of a Benefits Review Board decision awarding black lung benefits to Larry F. Hargett. The administrative law judge's decision was based on substantial evidence and did not contain reversible error. The Board's decision upholding the award of benefits was also proper. The Court dispensed with oral argument because the issues and facts were adequately presented in the materials before the Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    10 views2 pages

    Island Creek Coal Company v. Larry Hargett, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Island Creek Coal Company's petition for review of a Benefits Review Board decision awarding black lung benefits to Larry F. Hargett. The administrative law judge's decision was based on substantial evidence and did not contain reversible error. The Board's decision upholding the award of benefits was also proper. The Court dispensed with oral argument because the issues and facts were adequately presented in the materials before the Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-1193

    ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY,


    Petitioner,
    v.
    LARRY F. HARGETT; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
    PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
    Respondents.

    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.


    (12-0158-BLA)

    Submitted:

    May 29, 2015

    Decided:

    June 4, 2015

    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ashley M. Harman, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia,


    for Petitioner.
    Joseph E. Wolfe, Ryan C. Gilligan, WOLFE,
    WILLIAMS, RUTHERFORD & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia; M. Patricia
    Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor,
    Gary K. Stearman, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Rita A.
    Roppolo, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.,
    for Respondents.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Island

    Creek

    Coal

    Company

    seeks

    review

    of

    the

    Benefits

    Review Boards decision and order affirming the administrative


    law judges (ALJ) award of black lung benefits to former miner
    Larry F. Hargett, pursuant to 30 U.S.C. 901-945 (2012). *

    Our

    review of the record discloses that the ALJs decision is based


    upon

    substantial

    evidence

    without reversible error.


    review.
    legal
    before

    and

    that

    the

    Boards

    decision

    is

    Accordingly, we deny the petition for

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    PETITION DENIED

    This case was in abeyance pending the decision in Hobet


    Mining LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2015), which was
    argued in seriatim with W. Va. CWP Fund v. Bender, 782 F.3d 129
    (4th Cir. 2015).
    Both cases have been decided, and we have
    considered them in our analysis of this appeal.

    You might also like