Case Name: Neal BLANKENSHIP, Petitioner, v. ISLAND CREEK 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: 2001-05-18
Citations: 10 F. App'x 128
Docket Number: No. 00-2430
Parties: Neal BLANKENSHIP, Petitioner, v. ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
Neal BLANKENSHIP, Petitioner, v. ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 00-2430.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 10, 2001.
Decided May 18, 2001.
Neal Blankenship, petitioner pro se. Martin Ellison Hall, Jackson & Kelly, Lexington, KY; Patricia May Nece, Jeffrey Steven Goldberg, United States Department of Labor, Washington, DC, for respondents.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Neal Blankenship 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 Blankenship v. Island Creek Coal Co., Nos. 99-1194-BLA; 99-1194-BLA-A; 98-1011-BLA (Oct. 31, 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 (December 20, 2000), and have determined that the revisions do not affect the outcome of this case.