Case Name: David FOLDEN, Petitioner, v. SLAB FORK COAL COMPANY; West Virginia Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis Fund, Brickstreet Administrative Services; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-01
Citations: 324 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 08-1927
Parties: David FOLDEN, Petitioner, v. SLAB FORK COAL COMPANY; West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund, Brickstreet Administrative Services; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Respondents.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 276–276

Head Matter:
David FOLDEN, Petitioner, v. SLAB FORK COAL COMPANY; West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund, Brickstreet Administrative Services; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Respondents.
No. 08-1927.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 18, 2009.
Decided: May 1, 2009.
Derrick W. Lefler, Gibson, Lefler & Associates, Princeton, West Virginia, for Appellant. Douglas A. Smoot, Wendy G. Adkins, Jackson Kelly PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Respondents Slab Fork Coal Company and West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Folden 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. § 901-945 (2006). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Folden v. Slab Fork Coal Co., No. 07-0836-BLA (B.R.B. June 24, 2008). 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 DENIED.