UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 96-2856

THOMAS G. WALLS; DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Benefits Review Board.

(92-569-BLA)

Submitted: September 23, 1997

Decided: October 14, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, ARTER & HADDEN,

Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. S.F. Raymond Smith, RUNDLE &

RUNDLE, L.C., Pineville, West Virginia; J. Davitt McAteer, Acting

Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor, Patricia M.
Nece, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Jill M. Otte, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for

Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Eastern Associated Coal Corp. (Eastern) appeals the decision of the

Benefits Review Board (Board) affirming the administrative law

judge's (ALJ) order awarding Thomas Walls (Walls) black lung benefits under 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1997).

Walls filed his first application for black lung benefits in June

1973. The claim was denied in June 1980, and Walls did not appeal.

Walls filed two more pro se applications for black lung benefits that

were denied before he filed this claim for benefits, his fourth application for black lung benefits, in September 1989. After hearing Walls'

claim, an ALJ awarded Walls benefits. Eastern appealed the ALJ's

decision to the Board; however, the Board affirmed the ALJ's order.

Eastern moved for reconsideration, and the Board again affirmed the

award of benefits.

After this court issued its opinion in Lisa Lee Mines v. Director,

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs,1 Eastern again sought

reconsideration from the Board. The Board granted Eastern's motion

to reconsider the ALJ's decision in light of Lisa Lee Mines; however,

the Board found that the ALJ correctly found a material change of

condition, and for the third time affirmed the ALJ's decision awarding black lung benefits to Walls. Now, Eastern petitions for review of

the Board's order affirming the ALJ's award of benefits.

_________________________________________________________________

1 86 F.3d 1358 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,

65 U.S.L.W. 3505 (Jan. 21, 1997) (No. 96-402).

 2
On appeal, Eastern asserts that this case must be remanded to the

ALJ to be determined in accordance with the "one-element" standard

this court adopted in Lisa Lee Mines for determining whether a claimant establishes a material change in condition in duplicate claims cases.2

That standard merely requires the claimant to prove, by means of evidence of his medical condition subsequent to the prior denial, at least

one element previously adjudicated against him. 3 Therefore, Eastern's

claim is without merit because the Board reviewed the ALJ's findings

in light of Lisa Lee Mines, and determined that the ALJ's decision to

award black lung benefits correctly relied upon the medical evidence

submitted subsequent to the denial of Walls' third application for

black lung benefits.

Moreover, the Board did not err by failing to remand the case to

the ALJ. Instead, the Board followed the same path as this court in

Lisa Lee Mines. Rather than remanding, the Board applied the standard articulated in Lisa Lee Mines, and found that although the ALJ

did not make a separate and distinct finding under 20 C.F.R.

§ 725.309 (1997), the ALJ implicitly found that Walls had demonstrated a material change in conditions based on medical evidence

compiled after the previous denial.4

Because the Board applied the standard set forth in Lisa Lee Mines

and substantial evidence supports the ALJ's award of benefits, we

affirm the Board's order. 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

_________________________________________________________________

2 See Lisa Lee Mines, 86 F.3d at 1363.

3 Id.

4 Id. at 1365.

 3