Juanita Graham v. Consolidation Coal Co., Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, Party-In-Interest, 816 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Juanita Graham v. Consolidation Coal Co., Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, Party-In-Interest, 816 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
50 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: National Credit Union Administration Board v. First National Bank (ilnd, 1988-05-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" National Credit Union Administration Board v. First National Bank
N.D. Ill. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See FDIC v. Morrison, et al., 816 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1987); FDIC v. Investors Associates X, Ltd., 775 F.2d 152 (6th Cir.1985); FDIC v. McClanahan, 795 F.2d 512 (5th Cir.1986); FDIC v. Powers, 576 F.Supp. 1167 (N.D.Ill. 1984) aff'd mem. 753 F.2d 1076 (7th Cir. 1984).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Karl Rove & Company v. Richard Thornburgh, Richard Thornburgh, Cross-Appellee, and Raymond P. Dimuzio, Defendant-Cross-Appellee
5th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
PDIC v. Tyree, 698 S.W.2d 353 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1985) (Tenn.1985) (reversing trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of candidate); see also FDIC v. Morrison, Nos. 85-5272, 85-5273, 1987 WL 37065 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 1987) (table opinion at 816 F.2d 679 ) (reversing district court grant of summary judgment in favor of candidate). 99 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." ca4 1994
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare FDIC v. Morrison, 816 F.2d 679 , 1987 WL 37065 (6th Cir.1987) (table) (extending holder-in-due-course protection) with FDIC v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 947 F.2d 196 , 205 n. 8 (6th Cir.1991) (in dictum, citing with approval the Fifth Circuit's decision in Montross ) 33 See, e.g., MD.COM.LAW CODE ANN.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Resolution Trust Corp. v. Maplewood Investments
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare FDIC v. Morrison, 816 F.2d 679 , 1987 WL 37065 (6th Cir.1987) (table) (text in Westlaw) (extending holder-indue-course protection) with FDIC v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 947 F.2d 196 , 205 n. 8 (6th Cir.1991) (in dictum, citing with approval the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Montross). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Karl Rove & Co. v. Thornburgh
W.D. Tex. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., FDIC v. Morrison, 816 F.2d 679 , at *3 (6th Cir.1987) (unpublished disposition, text in WESTLAW); Reading Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 1992 WL 392595 , at *7 (E.D.Pa.
cited Cited "see, e.g." McLemore v. Landry
M.D. La. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also FDIC v. Morrison, 816 F.2d 679 (6th Cir.1987).
Juanita Graham
v.
Consolidation Coal Company, Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Party-In-Interest
86-3318.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Apr 17, 1987.
816 F.2d 679
Unpublished

816 F.2d 679

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) 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 Sixth Circuit.
Juanita GRAHAM, Petitioner,
v.
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Respondent,
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United
States Department of Labor, Party-in-Interest, Respondent

No. 86-3318.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 17, 1987.

Before MARTIN, WELLFORD and MILBURN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Juanita Graham, the widow of Harry Graham, seeks Black Lung benefits under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. 30 U.S.C. Secs. 901, et seq. This case began in April 1979, when Harry Graham filed a benefits claim. The Department of Labor made an initial determination of entitlement to benefits and instituted interim payments in August 1981. Harry Graham died in September 1981 and his widow, Juanita, filed a separate claim in October 1981 for Black Lung Benefits as his surviving spouse. The Department of Labor issued an initial determination of entitlement to benefits for the surviving spouse claim and instituted interim payments in November 1981. The employer, Consolidated Coal Company, contested the entitlement to both claims and the claims were referred for formal hearing. In 1983 an administrative law judge heard the benefit claims and denied them. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the decision of the administrative law judge in February of 1986.

2

In April 1986, Juanita Graham appealed to this Court and provided us with an informal brief that does little more than indicate her displeasure with the denial of benefits. For example, in response to the questions, "Did the District Court incorrectly decide the facts? If so, what facts?," she responded simply, "yes," "medical evidence." In response to the questions, "Do you feel that there are any other reasons why the District Court's judgment was wrong? If so, what are they?," she replied "yes," "spirit & purpose of the Black Lung Reform Act."

3

While we sympathize with Juanita Graham's unfortunate story and although we regret the apparent complexity of the legal process to the uninitiated, her informal brief was not just informal, but inadequate. All that are able to discern from her vague brief is that she is unhappy with the result. Such a broad brush argument provides little help to a court in trying to decide the merits of a particular case.

4

We are left, then, guessing that Juanita Graham challenges the factual findings of the administrative law judge and the Benefits Review Board. The standard of review applied to Black Lung cases is whether the decision below is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law. See Moore v. Califano, 633 F.2d 727 (6th Cir.1980). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 420 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). After a review of the record, in particular the administrative law judge's opinion and the supporting material, we find no reversible error.

5

The judgment of the Benefits Review Board is affirmed.