William A. Minnich v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 799 F.2d 751 (4th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
William A. Minnich v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 799 F.2d 751 (4th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William A. Minnich
v.
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
86-2542.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Sep 2, 1986.
Unpublished opinion
799 F.2d 751
1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 29240
1986 WL 17401
Unpublished

799 F.2d 751
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
William A. Minnich, Petitioner
v.
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United
States Department of Labor, Respondent.

No. 86-2542.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 30, 1986.
Decided Sept. 2, 1986.

Before WIDENER, SPROUSE and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~751–752]1

(William A. Minnich, Petitioner. J. Michael O'Neill, Roscoe C. Bryant, III, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of Labor, for Respondent.)

PER CURIAM:

2

William A. Minnich moves this Court for summary remand of his claim filed pursuant to Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 901 et seq. Minnich argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) should have raised the presumption that he was disabled under the subsections of 20 C.F.R. Sec. 727.203. The respondent has indicated that it has no objection to this motion.

3

In light of this Court's recent decision in Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 785 F.2d 424 (4th Cir. 1986) (en banc), our review of the record indicates that summary remand is appropriate in this case. We, therefore, remand this case for further proceedings consistent with our decision in Stapleton. We dispense with oral argument as it would not siginificantly aid the decisional process.

REMANDED