Case Name: Alfred Rhea NIDIFFER, Petitioner, v. WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, Incorporated; 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: 2001-05-01
Citations: 9 F. App'x 98
Docket Number: No. 00-2479
Parties: Alfred Rhea NIDIFFER, Petitioner, v. WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, Incorporated; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 9
Pages: 98–98

Head Matter:
Alfred Rhea NIDIFFER, Petitioner, v. WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, Incorporated; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 00-2479.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2001.
Decided May 1, 2001.
Alfred Rhea Nidiffer, Petitioner pro se.
Douglas Allan Smoot, Jackson & Kelly, Charleston, WV; Kathy Lynn Snyder, Jackson & Kelly, Morgantown, WV; Patricia May Nece, Christian P. Barber, Barry H. Joyner, United States Department of Labor, Washington, DC, for respondents.
Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Alfred R. Nidiffer 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.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 on the reasoning of the Board. See Ni-differ v. Westmoreland Coal Co., Nos. 99-1312-BLA; 98-1271-BLA (Oct. 30, 2000). 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 recent 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.