Lemon v. Peabody Coal Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JIMMIE J. LEMON, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
PEABODY COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR,
No. 96-2142
OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board.
(No. 95-2299-BLA)
Submitted: January 31, 1997
Decided: February 24, 1997
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
S.F. Raymond Smith, RUNDLE & RUNDLE, L.C., Pineville, West
Virginia, for Petitioner. Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus,
ARTER & HADDEN, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Jimmie Joe Lemon, Sr., a former coal miner, seeks review of a
decision of the Benefits Review Board (Board) affirming an adminis-
trative law judge's (ALJ) decision to deny his application for black
lung benefits. The ALJ denied benefits in this case based on his find-
ing that Lemon failed to establish the presence of pneumoconiosis or
that he was totally disabled by a respiratory or pulmonary impair-
ment. The Board affirmed the ALJ's finding of no pneumoconiosis
and denial of benefits. After reviewing the record, we find no revers-
ible error and affirm the order of the Board.
This Court reviews the Board's decision only for errors of law and
to ensure that the Board adhered to the correct standard of review.1
Therefore, this Court affirms the Board's decision if the Board prop-
erly decided that the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial
evidence.2 To determine whether the ALJ's findings are supported by
substantial evidence, this Court undertakes an independent review of
the record.3 However, review is confined to the grounds upon which
the Board based its decision.4
On appeal, Lemon contends that the ALJ erred by finding the med-
ical opinion evidence insufficient to establish pneumoconiosis pursu-
ant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4) (1996). We disagree. The record
belies Lemon's contentions that the medical reports credited by the
_________________________________________________________________
1 Doss v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 53
F.3d 654, 658 (4th Cir. 1995).
2 Id. at 659.
3 Dehue Coal Co. v. Ballard, 65 F.3d 1189, 1193 (4th Cir. 1995).
4 See Grigg v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs,
28 F.3d 416, 418 (4th Cir. 1994); see also Securities and Exch. Comm'n
v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943).
2
ALJ finding no pneumoconiosis were impermissibly based solely on
negative X-rays. Doctors Zandivar and Tuteur, on whose opinions the
ALJ primarily relied, explained in great detail how not only the over-
whelming negative X-ray evidence, but also Lemon's medical history,
symptoms, physical examinations, and objective studies supported
their conclusion that Lemon's disability stems from morbid obesity
and smoking.
Accordingly, the decision of the Board denying benefits is
affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3