BRB No. 98-1439 BLA                     
                              
ROBERT LEE BROWNING           )
                                   )
               Claimant-Petitioner      )
                    )
     v.                            )
                                   )
ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY          )
                                   )
               Employer-Respondent )
                                   )              
                                   )
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'       )
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED )DATE ISSUED:08/06/1999
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR         )
                    )
               Party-in-Interest        )    DECISION and ORDER
     
     Appeal of the Decision and Order of Clement J. Kennington, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department
     of Labor.

     Robert Lee Browning, Whitman, West Virginia, pro se.
     
     Mary Rich Maloy (Jackson & Kelly), Charleston, West Virginia, for employer.

     Before:  SMITH and BROWN, Administrative Appeals Judges, and NELSON, Acting Administrative Appeals
     Judge.  

     PER CURIAM:
     Claimant,[1]  without the assistance of counsel, appeals the Decision
and Order (97-BLA-0242) of Administrative Law Judge Clement J. Kennington denying benefits on a claim filed
pursuant to the provisions of Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended, 30
U.S.C. §901 et seq. (the Act).  The administrative law judge credited the miner with "in excess"
of thirty-two years of coal mine employment.  Decision and Order at 3.  Applying the regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part
718, the administrative law judge found the evidence insufficient to establish the existence of pneumoconiosis
pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §718.202(a).  Decision and Order at 7-9.  Accordingly, benefits were denied.

     On appeal, claimant generally contends that the administrative law judge erred in denying benefits. 
Employer responds, urging affirmance of the administrative law judge's Decision and Order.  The Director, Office
of Workers' Compensation Programs, has declined to participate in this appeal.[2] 

     In an appeal filed by a claimant without the assistance of counsel, the Board will consider the issue raised
to be whether the Decision and Order below is supported by substantial evidence. McFall v. Jewell Ridge Coal
Corp., 12 BLR 1-176 (1989).  We must affirm the administrative law judge's Decision and Order if the
findings of fact and conclusions of law are rational, supported by substantial evidence, and in accordance with law. 
33 U.S.C. §921(b)(3), as incorporated into the Act by 30 U.S.C. §932(a); O'Keeffe v. Smith,
Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965).

     Pursuant to Section 718.202(a)(1), the administrative law judge considered the twenty-nine readings of
eight x-rays contained in the record.  The administrative law judge properly found the readings of the physicians
who are both B-readers[3]  and Board-certified radiologists to "merit the
highest degree of consideration."  Decision and Order at 8; see Adkins v. Director, OWCP, 958 F.2d 49,
16 BLR 2-61 (4th Cir. 1992); Trent v. Director, OWCP, 11 BLR 1-26 (1987); Roberts v. Bethlehem
Mines Corp., 8 BLR 1-211 (1985).   In considering this group of x-ray readings, the administrative law judge
noted that there are only two positive interpretations rendered by Drs. Deardorff and Francke, Director's Exhibit
14, Claimant's Exhibit 2, and numerous negative readings.  Decision and Order at 8.

     The administrative law judge rationally found the positive reading of the June 23, 1997 x-ray by Dr.
Deardorff to be undermined by the readings of Drs. Wiot, Shipley, and Spitz, all B-readers and Board-certified
radiologists, who found this film to be unreadable.[4]   Id; see
Tackett v. Cargo Mining Co., 12 BLR 1-11 (1988)(en banc); Calfee v. Director, OWCP, 8
BLR 1-7, 1-10 (1985).  Additionally, the administrative law judge reasonably found Dr. Francke's positive reading
of the March 29, 1996 x-ray to be unexplained and outweighed by the negative readings of physicians who
commented "as to why they believed that Claimant did not suffer from pneumoconiosis, and offered alternative
theories as to claimant's ailment."  Decision and Order at 8; see Tackett, supra; Calfee,
supra; see also Edmiston v. F & R Coal Co., 14 BLR 1-65 (1990); Sheckler v. Clinchfield Coal
Co., 7 BLR 1-128 (1984). Inasmuch as the administrative law judge properly concluded that the two positive
x-ray readings of Drs. Deardorff and Francke, "[w]hen held up against the negative findings of multiple highly
qualified and experienced physicians," are insufficient to establish the existence of pneumoconiosis by a
preponderance of the evidence, Decision and Order at 8, we affirm his Section 718.202(a)(1) finding. See
Director, OWCP v. Greenwich Collieries [Ondecko], 114 S.Ct. 2251, 18
BLR 2A-1 (1994), aff'g sub nom. Greenwich Collieries v. Director,
OWCP, 990 F.2d 730, 17 BLR 2-64 (3d Cir. 1993).

     There is no biopsy or autopsy evidence in the record that establishes the existence of  pneumoconiosis.
See 20 C.F.R. §718.202(a)(2).  The presumptions found at Sections 718.304, 718.305, and 718.306
are inapplicable to this living miner's claim filed after January 1, 1982, see Kubachka v. Windsor
Power House Coal Corp., 11 BLR 1-171 (1988), in which there is no evidence of complicated
pneumoconiosis, see generally Trent, supra. See 20 C.F.R. §718.202(a)(3).  Therefore, we
affirm the administrative law judge's findings pursuant to these sections.

   Pursuant to Section 718.202(a)(4), Dr. Ranavaya found the existence of pneumoconiosis whereas Drs.
Hippensteel, Crisalli, and Fino did not.  In considering the medical opinion evidence, the administrative law judge
permissibly discredited Dr. Ranavaya's opinion because he found it to be "based only on the history provided to
him by Claimant and his own reading of a single x-ray."  Decision and Order at 9; see Worhach v. Director,
OWCP, 17 BLR 1-105 (1993)(medical opinion that purports to be based on clinical findings beyond x-ray may
be found to be based solely on x-ray reading); Anderson v. Valley Camp of Utah, Inc., 12 BLR 1-111
(1989); cf. Church v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 20 BLR 1-8 (1996).  Moreover, the administrative
law judge reasonably found the contrary opinion of Dr. Crisalli to be "well-reasoned and well-documented" and
supported by the opinions of Drs. Fino and Hippensteel. Id; see Clark v. Karst-Robbins Coal Co.,
12 BLR 1-149 (1989)(en banc); Fields v. Island Creek Coal Co., 10 BLR 1-19 (1987);
Lucostic v. United States Steel Corp., 8 BLR 1-46 (1985). Thus, the administrative law judge
concluded that "Claimant has failed to establish the existence of pneumoconiosis by a preponderance of the
evidence" because the opinions of Drs. Crisalli, Fino, and Hippensteel "provide a more clear understanding of
Claimant's medical condition than the less complete and discredited findings of Dr. Ranavaya." Id. 
Therefore, we affirm the administrative law judge's Section 718.202(a)(4) finding. See Anderson,
supra; Fagg v. Amax Coal Co., 12 BLR 1-77 (1988).

   Inasmuch as we affirm the administrative law judge's Section 718.202(a) finding, that claimant failed to
establish the existence of pneumoconiosis, a requisite element of entitlement under Part 718, see Trent,
supra; Perry v. Director, OWCP, 9 BLR 1-1 (1986)(en banc), we also affirm his denial of
benefits.

   Accordingly, the administrative law judge's Decision and Order denying benefits is affirmed.

   SO ORDERED.




                                                                   
                       ROY P. SMITH
                       Administrative Appeals Judge



                                                                   
                       JAMES F. BROWN
                       Administrative Appeals Judge



                                                                   
                       MALCOLM D. NELSON, Acting
                       Administrative Appeals Judge

To Top of Document

Footnotes.
 1)Claimant is Robert Lee Browning, the miner, who filed his claim for benefits on March
4, 1996.  Director's Exhibit 1.
 Back to Text

 2)We affirm the administrative law judge's length of coal mine employment finding as
it is not adverse to claimant and is unchallenged on appeal. See Coen v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR
1-30 (1984); Skrack v. Island Creek Coal Co., 6 BLR 1-710 (1983).
 Back to Text

 3)A "B-reader" is a physician who has demonstrated proficiency in classifying x-rays
according to the ILO-U/C standards by successful completion of an examination established by the National
Institute of Safety and Health. See 20 C.F.R. §718.202(a)(1)(ii)(E); 42 C.F.R. §37.51;
Mullins Coal Co., Inc. of Virginia v. Director, OWCP, 484 U.S. 135, 145 n.16, 11 BLR 2-1, 2-16 n.16
(1987), reh'g denied, 484 U.S. 1047 (1988); Roberts v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 8 BLR 1-211
(1985).
 Back to Text

 4)While Drs. Scott and Wheeler, who are also B-readers and Board-certified radiologists,
did not find this film to be unreadable, they found the x-ray to be negative and found its  quality to be substandard,
at level three.  Employer's Exhibit 14.
 Back to Text

To Top of Document