UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM FLUHARTY, Petitioner,

v.

DONALDSON MINING COMPANY; No. 96-1927 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-2189-BLA)

Submitted: December 12, 1996

Decided: December 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

S. F. Raymond Smith, RUNDLE & RUNDLE, L.C., Pineville, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Douglas A. Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William Fluharty, a former coal miner, seeks review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board (Board) affirming an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision to deny his application for black lung benefits. The ALJ denied benefits in this case based on his finding that Flu- harty failed to establish the presence of pneumoconiosis or that his pneumoconiosis contributed to his totally disabling respiratory impairment. The Board affirmed the finding of no pneumoconiosis, and found it unnecessary to address the causation issue.

On appeal, Fluharty contends that the ALJ erred by finding the medical opinion evidence insufficient to establish pneumoconiosis pursuant to

(a)(4) (1996). We disagree. Fluharty's contentions that the reports credited by the ALJ finding no pneumoco- niosis were impermissibly based solely on negative X-rays and the fact that the claimant's impairment was obstructive are belied by the record. Dr. Crisalli, on whose opinion the ALJ primarily relied, explicitly acknowledged that pneumoconiosis could produce an obstructive defect, but stated that the nature of the claimant's particu- lar obstructive defect was inconsistent with pneumoconiosis. More- over, he and other physicians finding no pneumoconiosis in this case explained in great detail how not only the negative X-ray evidence, but also the miner's history, symptoms, physical examinations, and objective studies supported their conclusion that the miner's pulmo- nary disease is solely attributable to smoking.

Accordingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2