Wells v. Buffalo Mining Co ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JAMES F. WELLS,
Petitioner,
v.
BUFFALO MINING COMPANY;
No. 95-1847
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board.
(94-3842-BLA)
Submitted: December 26, 1995
Decided: August 6, 1996
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and MURNAGHAN and
WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Roger D. Forman, FORMAN & CRANE, L.C., Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, for Petitioner. Douglas A. Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
James Wells seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's (Board)
decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's (ALJ)
denial of his application for black lung benefits pursuant to 30
U.S.C.A. §§ 901-45 (West 1986 & Supp. 1995). The ALJ found the
evidence of record sufficient to establish the presence of pneumoconi-
osis arising out of coal mine employment, but benefits were denied
in this case based on Wells's inability to establish the presence of a
totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment under 20
C.F.R. § 718.204(c) (1995).
We have reviewed the briefs and the record and find that Wells
identifies no reversible error. While he avers that the ALJ should have
accorded greater weight to his qualifying exercise blood gas study,
the ALJ acted within his discretion by finding this study outweighed
by the conflicting, non-qualifying blood gas evidence of record. See
Gray v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 943
F.2d 513, 521 (4th Cir. 1991). Similarly, while Wells contends that
the ALJ erred by crediting the opinions of Drs. Zaldivar, Fino, and
Hippensteel over the opinions of Drs. Rasmussen and Gaziano, he
identifies no legal error committed by the ALJ in weighing the evi-
dence. Moreover, we note that, particularly since he properly rejected
the only objective study tending to support Wells's burden, the ALJ
reasonably accorded greater weight to the medical opinions which
were best supported by the objective evidence of record. See Director,
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Siwiec , 894 F.2d 635,
639 (3d Cir. 1990).
Because the ALJ's conclusions are supported by substantial evi-
dence and are not contrary to law, they must be affirmed. See Zbosnik
v. Badger Coal Co., 759 F.2d 1187, 1189 (4th Cir. 1985). Accord-
ingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed. We deny Wells's motion
2
for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3