Case Name: Margaret A. CAPPS, widow of Charles K. Capps, Petitioner, v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-19
Citations: 22 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 01-1930
Parties: Margaret A. CAPPS, widow of Charles K. Capps, Petitioner, v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 289–289

Head Matter:
Margaret A. CAPPS, widow of Charles K. Capps, Petitioner, v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 01-1930.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 10, 2001.
Decided Dec. 19, 2001.
S.F. Raymond Smith, Rundle & Rundle, L.C., Pineville, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Margaret A. Capps seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. § 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.2001). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Capps v. Peabody Coal Co., No. 00-914-BLA (BRB June 12, 2001). 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.
We have considered the revisions to the regulations implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act, see Regulations Implementing the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended; 65 Fed.Reg. 79,919 (Dec. 20, 2000), and have determined that the revisions do not affect the outcome of this case.