Case ID: f-appx_221/html/0288-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS’ PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, as carrier for Vision Coal Company, Petitioner, v. Tracy H. CHAMP; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Respondents.
    No. 06-1902.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 26, 2007.
    Decided: March 14, 2007.
    William Steele Mattingly, Ashley M. Harman, Jackson & Kelly, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Tracy H. Champ, Respondent Pro Se; Patricia May Nece, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., Helen Hart Cox, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund, as carrier for Vision Coal Company, seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits, in favor of Tracy H. Champ, pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Board. West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund v. Champ, No. 05-569-BLA (BRB June 22, 2006). 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. 
      
       On appeal, the Fund asserts that Champ should have been required to render a designation of x-ray evidence in proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge, and that the Administrative Law Judge erred by failing to consider pulmonary evaluation reports prepared by Dr. Castle and Dr. Forehand. We deem these contentions waived, however, as they were not presented during the course of the administrative proceedings. See Armco, Inc. v. Martin, 277 F.3d 468, 476 (4th Cir.2002).