Opinion

Brown v. Director

  • 309 F. App'x 690
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jan 26, 2009
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Niemeyer, Shedd, Hamilton
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1232

DAISY BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; WEST

VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS’ PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND; MACK COAL COMPANY,

INCORPORATED,

Respondents.

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

(07-0308-BLA)

Submitted: September 15, 2008 Decided: January 26, 2009

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition granted; reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

S. F. Raymond Smith, JULIET RUNDLE & ASSOCIATES, Pineville, West

Virginia, for Petitioner. Christopher M. Hunter, JACKSON KELLY

PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents West Virginia Coal

Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund and Mack Coal Company, Incorporated.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daisy Brown seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s

decision and order reversing the administrative law judge’s award

of survivor’s black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945

(2000). Our review of the record discloses that Mr. Brown received

an award of black lung benefits during his lifetime. He was

admitted to hospice care with a terminal diagnosis of

pneumoconiosis and the death certificate stated that his death was

caused by “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to or as a

consequence of black lung disease.” We find that the decision of

the administrative law judge is based upon substantial evidence and

is without reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the petition

for review, reverse the decision of the Board, and remand for the

award of survivor’s benefits to Mrs. Brown. Brown v. Dir., Office

of Workers’ Comp. Programs, No. 07-0308-BLA (B.R.B. Dec. 31, 2007).

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 GRANTED;

REVERSED AND REMANDED

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.