BRB No. 98-1525 BLA


PAUL J. RHODES                )
                              )
            Claimant-Petitioner              )
                              )
     v.                       )    DATE ISSUED:08/17/1999                 
 
                              )
BUFFALO MINING COMPANY             )
                                                            )
            Employer-Respondent         )
                              )
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'  )
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,   )
UNITED 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.

     J. Robert Weaver, Charleston, West Virginia, for claimant.

     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  appeals  the  Decision  and  Order  (97-BLA-1833)  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 claimant with twenty-three years
of coal mine employment based on the parties' stipulation.  The administrative
law judge adjudicated this claim pursuant to 20  C.F.R. Part 718 as the claim
was filed after March 31, 1980.[1]   The 
administrative  law judge found that the weight of the x-ray evidence of record
was negative for pneumoconiosis at 20 C.F.R. §718.202(a)(1), that the
record contained no evidence at 20 C.F.R. §718.202(a)(2), that claimant was
not entitled to the presumptions at 20 C.F.R. §718.202(a)(3), and that
since the medical opinion evidence was in equipoise, claimant failed to meet his
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence under 20 C.F.R.
§718.202(a)(4).  Accordingly, benefits were denied.  On appeal, claimant
generally contends that he is entitled to benefits.  Employer responds urging
affirmance of the denial of benefits.  The Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, has filed a letter indicating that he will not
participate in this appeal.

     The Board's scope of review is defined by statute.  The administrative law
judge's Decision and Order must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial
evidence, is rational, and is in accordance with applicable law.  33 U.S.C.
§921(b)(3), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. §932(a); O'Keeffe v.
Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965).     

     The Board is not required to undertake a de novo adjudication
of the claim.  To do so would upset the carefully allocated division of power
between the administrative law judge as the trier-of-fact, and the Board as a
review tribunal. See 20 C.F.R. §802.301(a); Sarf  v. Director,
OWCP, 10 BLR 1-119 (1987).  As we have emphasized previously, the Board's
circumscribed scope of review requires that a party challenging the Decision and
Order below demonstrate why substantial evidence does not support the result
reached or why the Decision and Order is contrary to law. See 20 C.F.R.
§802.211(b); Cox v. Director, OWCP, 791 F.2d 445, 9 BLR 2-46 (6th
Cir. 1986), aff'g 7 BLR 1-610 (1984); Slinker v. Peabody Coal Co.,
6 BLR 1-465 (1983); Fish v. Director, OWCP, 6 BLR 1-107 (1983);
Sarf, supra.  Unless the party identifies errors and briefs its
allegations in terms of the relevant law and evidence, the Board has no basis
upon which to review the decision. See Sarf, supra;
Fish, supra.

     In the instant case, other than generally asserting that the medical
evidence of record was sufficient to establish pneumoconiosis and a totally
disabling respiratory impairment due to pneumoconiosis pursuant to 20 C.F.R.
§§718.202(a) and 718.204(c), see Claimant's Brief at 5-7,
claimant has failed to identify specifically any errors made by the
administrative law judge in the evaluation of the evidence and applicable law
pursuant to Part 718.  Thus, as claimant's counsel has failed to adequately
raise or brief any issues arising from the administrative law judge's Decision
and Order denying benefits, the Board has no basis upon which to review the
decision. See Cox, supra; Sarf; supra.

     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 filed his initial claim for benefits on July 5, 1973, which the district
director denied on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of pneumoconiosis arising
out of coal mine employment and a totally disabling respiratory impairment due to pneumoconiosis on June 12,
1980.  Director's Exhibit 36.  Claimant filed a second claim for benefits on April 18, 1994, which he withdrew on
August 13, 1994.  Director's Exhibit 37.  The instant claim was filed on January 27, 1997.  Director's Exhibit 1. 
The district director issued a Notice of Initial Finding on March 28, 1997, which employer controverted on April 3,
1997.  Director's Exhibits 17, 19.  Following the submission of evidence by employer, the district director found
claimant entitled to benefits in a letter dated July 16, 1997.  Director's Exhibit 32.  Employer requested a hearing. 
Director's Exhibit 33. 
 Back to Text

To Top of Document