Case Name: Janet L. HOWARD, Widow of Carlton E. Howard, Petitioner, v. BIG GRASSY CREEK COAL COMPANY; DLM Coal Corporation; West Virginia Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis Fund; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor; Denver A. Hawkins, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-06
Citations: 5 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 00-2221
Parties: Janet L. HOWARD, Widow of Carlton E. Howard, Petitioner, v. BIG GRASSY CREEK COAL COMPANY; DLM Coal Corporation; West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor; Denver A. Hawkins, Respondents.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 5
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
Janet L. HOWARD, Widow of Carlton E. Howard, Petitioner, v. BIG GRASSY CREEK COAL COMPANY; DLM Coal Corporation; West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor; Denver A. Hawkins, Respondents.
No. 00-2221.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 23, 2001.
Decided March 6, 2001.
Janet L. Howard, Petitioner pro se. Robert Weinberger, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, WV; Christian P. Barber, Jennifer U. Toth, United States Department of Labor, Washington, DC, for respondents.
Before NIEMEYER, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Janet L. Howard 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 Howard v. Big Grassy Creek Coal Co., BRB No. 99-1250-BLA (B.R.B. Aug. 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.