Case Name: Darrell S. COTTRELL, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-23
Citations: 10 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 01-1139
Parties: Darrell S. COTTRELL, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor, Respondent.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
Darrell S. COTTRELL, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor, Respondent.
No. 01-1139.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 17, 2001.
Decided May 23, 2001.
Darrell S. Cottrell, petitioner pro se. Christian P. Barber, Barry H. Joyner, United States Department of Labor, Washington, DC, for respondent.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darrell S. Cottrell 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), and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. 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 Cottrell v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, No. 99-1317-BLA (BRB Oct. 12, Dec. 20, 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.