Jennings v. DOWCP

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER JENNINGS,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 96-1753
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENTOF LABOR,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board.
(96-0165-BLA)
Argued: May 8, 1997
Decided: July 2, 1997
Before HALL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: S.F. Raymond Smith, RUNDLE & RUNDLE, L.C.,
Pineville, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Dorothy L. Page, Office
of
the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: J. Davitt McAteer,
Acting Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor,
Chris-
tian P. Barber, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Eileen McCarthy,
Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Jennings petitions for review of an order of the
Depart-
ment of Labor's Benefits Review Board (BRB), which affirmed the
decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ), denying Jennings'
claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C.
§ 901 et seq. Jennings asserts that the findings of the ALJ are not
sup-
ported by substantial evidence and that this court should remand
with
instructions to award benefits. The Director, Office of Workers'
Com-
pensation Programs, urges us to refrain from considering the merits
of Jennings' claim at this time. According to the Director, the
ALJ's
reasoning is not sufficiently explained to enable us to engage in
meaningful review, and the current factual record may be inadequate
for adjudication of the claim at all. Upon consideration of the
briefs
and arguments of the parties, we agree with the Director's view.
The
decision of the BRB is therefore vacated, and the claim is remanded
with instructions that it be resubmitted to an ALJ for
reconsideration.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2