EUNICE J. BLANKENSHIP, Widow of Verner Blankenship v. Beatrice Pocahontas Coal Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1727
EUNICE J. BLANKENSHIP, Widow of Verner
Blankenship,
Petitioner,
versus
BEATRICE POCAHONTAS COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(00-586-BLA)
Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eunice J. Blankenship, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot,
JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Kathy Lynn Snyder,
JACKSON & KELLY, Morgantown, West Virginia; Patricia May Nece,
Barry H. Joyner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington,
D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* We have considered the revisions to the regulations imple-
menting 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.
2
PER CURIAM:
Eunice J. Blankenship seeks review of the Benefits Review
Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s
denial of her claim for survivor’s black lung benefits pursuant to
30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 2001). Our review of the
record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substan-
tial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the Board. * See Blankenship v. Beatrice
Pocahontas Co., No. 00-586-BLA (B.R.B. May 10, 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

-- 2 of 2 --