Nidiffer v. Westmoreland Coal, No. 05-2234 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2234 LENA PERSON NIDIFFER, on behalf of and widow of Alfred Rhea Nidiffer, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (05-126-BLA) Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: June 30, 2006 Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lena Person Nidiffer, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Barry H. Joyner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Kathy Lynn Snyder, Ashley Marie Harman, JACKSON & KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Vincent John Carroll, Richlands, Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Lena Person Nidiffer petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board s (Board) Decision and Order affirming the Administrative Law Judge s (ALJ) denial of benefits on a living miner claim for black lung benefits and vacating and remanding the ALJ s decision awarding benefits on her widow s claim for benefits. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949); Eggers v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 11 F.3d 35, 38 (4th Cir. 1993). The order Nidiffer seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order with regard to her widow s claim for benefits. Accordingly, with regard to the Board s order vacating and remanding the widow s claim, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the miner s claim is not inextricably intertwined with the widow s claim, we exercise jurisdiction over the Board s affirmance of the denial of benefits on the miner s claim. Eggers, 11 F.3d at 39. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the Board s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of benefits on the miner s claim on the reasoning of the Board. See Nidiffer v. Westmoreland Coal Co., Nos. 05-0126 BLA, 05-0126 BLA-A - 3 - (BRB Sept. 30, 2005). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART - 4 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
