# Acie Blankenship v. Beatrice Pocahontas Coal Company Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 29, 1994 · 45 F.3d 425

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/686867

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 29, 1994
- **Citations:** 45 F.3d 425; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40370; 1994 WL 717572
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/686867

## Opinion text

45 F.3d 425
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Acie BLANKENSHIP, Petitioner,
v.
BEATRICE POCAHONTAS COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of
Workers' Compensation Programs, United States
Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 94-1300.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 13, 1994.
Decided Dec. 29, 1994.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (91-2181-BLA).
Acie Blankenship, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, WV; Michael John Denney, Edward Waldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
Ben.Rev.Bd.
AFFIRMED.
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1
Appellant 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. Secs. 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.1994). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Blankenship v. Beatrice Pocahontas Coal Co., No. 91-2181-BLA (B.R.B. Dec. 30, 1993). 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.
2
AFFIRMED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/686867. Public record. Not legal advice.