# Alfred Lowe v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Sewell Coal Company

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 25, 1995 · 56 F.3d 61

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/696714

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 25, 1995
- **Citations:** 56 F.3d 61; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19116; 1995 WL 318488
- **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/696714

## Opinion text

56 F.3d 61
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Alfred LOWE, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United
States Department of Labor; Sewell Coal Company,
Respondents.
No. 94-1714.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 29, 1994.
Decided May 25, 1995.
Alfred Lowe, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Eileen Mary McCarthy, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, DC; Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, WV, for Respondents.
Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, 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. Lowe v. DOWCP, No. 93-392-BLA (Benefits Review Board, May 13, 1994). 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/696714. Public record. Not legal advice.