Grimmett v. Arch of West Virginia/Apogee Coal Co.

Fourth Circuit

Grimmett v. Arch of West Virginia/Apogee Coal Co.

7 F. App'x 207

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 2001

Docket00-2379

StatusUnpublished

This text of 7 F. App'x 207 (Grimmett v. Arch of West Virginia/Apogee Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grimmett v. Arch of West Virginia/Apogee Coal Co., 7 F. App'x 207 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

James Grimmett seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.2000). Grimmett contends that the ALJ erred by finding that he was not totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis. We affirm.

We must affirm the Board’s decision if it correctly found that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. Richardson v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 94 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir.1996). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. The ALJ’s decision to combine his discussion of whether Grimmett established total disability with the question of causation was harmless error. Sahara Coal Co. v. Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 946 F.2d 554, *208 558 (7th Cir.1991) (holding harmless error doctrine applicable to judicial review of ALJ action in Black Lung cases; “If the outcome of a remand is foreordained, we need not order one.”); Newell v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 933 F.2d 510, 512 (7th Cir.1991) (“While the regulations do not specifically provide us with grounds to hold an ALJ’s error harmless, we have not been reluctant to rely on harmless error when a remand would be futile (and costly).”). In addition, we find that there was no error in the ALJ’s decision to accord greater weight to the opinions of Drs. Zaldivar, Walker and Loudon and lesser weight to Dr. Rasmussen’s opinion.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Grimmett v. Arch of West Virginia Apogee, BRB No. 99-0819-BLA (B.R.B. Sept. 21, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

James Grimmett seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.2000). Grimmett contends that the ALJ erred by finding that he was not totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis. We affirm.

We must affirm the Board’s decision if it correctly found that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. Richardson v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 94 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir.1996). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. The ALJ’s decision to combine his discussion of whether Grimmett established total disability with the question of causation was harmless error. Sahara Coal Co. v. Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 946 F.2d 554, *208 558 (7th Cir.1991) (holding harmless error doctrine applicable to judicial review of ALJ action in Black Lung cases; “If the outcome of a remand is foreordained, we need not order one.”); Newell v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 933 F.2d 510, 512 (7th Cir.1991) (“While the regulations do not specifically provide us with grounds to hold an ALJ’s error harmless, we have not been reluctant to rely on harmless error when a remand would be futile (and costly).”). In addition, we find that there was no error in the ALJ’s decision to accord greater weight to the opinions of Drs. Zaldivar, Walker and Loudon and lesser weight to Dr. Rasmussen’s opinion.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Grimmett v. Arch of West Virginia Apogee, BRB No. 99-0819-BLA (B.R.B. Sept. 21, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 F. App'x 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grimmett-v-arch-of-west-virginiaapogee-coal-co-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack