Case Name: Ronald B. BOONE, Sr., Petitioner, v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK 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: 2001-11-15
Citations: 21 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 01-1736
Parties: Ronald B. BOONE, Sr., Petitioner, v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 21
Pages: 231–231

Head Matter:
Ronald B. BOONE, Sr., Petitioner, v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 01-1736.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 10, 2001.
Decided Nov. 15, 2001.
Ronald B. Boone, Sr., Petitioner pro se.
Jonathan Henry Walker, Mason, Cowardin & Mason, P.C., Newport News, VA; Carol A. De Deo, Associate Solicitor, United States Department of Labor, Washington, DC; Basil E. Voultsides, United States Department of Labor, Norfolk, VA, for respondents.
Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ronald B. Boone petitions for review of the decision and order of the Benefits Review Board affirming the Administrative Law Judge's finding that he did not establish good cause to change authorized neurologists and that he was not entitled to a continuing award of benefits under the Longshore & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. See 33 U.S.C.A. § 901-950 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Boone v. Newport News Shipbuilding, No. BRB-00-0683 (B.R.B. Apr. 4, 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.