BLA UNPUBLISHED Document: 92-1697.MAT

                   BRB No. 92-1697 BLA
                 
                                              

HUNTER MATTHEWS, JR.          )
                              )
          Claimant-Petitioner )
                              )
     v.                       )
                              )
BLUE DIAMOND COAL COMPANY     )
                              )    DATE ISSUED:                
          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 Daniel L. Stewart, Administrative Law
     Judge, United States Department of Labor.

     John C. Dixon, Barbourville, Kentucky, for claimant.          
     Before:  DOLDER, Acting Chief Administrative Appeals Judge,      BROWN and
McGRANERY, Administrative Appeals Judges.  

     PER CURIAM:

     Claimant appeals the Decision and Order (91-BLA-0378) of Administrative Law
Judge Daniel L. Stewart 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).  Based on the date of
filing, March 8, 1988, the administrative law judge considered the claim pursuant
to 20 C.F.R. Part 718 and credited claimant with eighteen years of coal mine
employment.  The administrative law judge then determined that claimant failed to
establish the existence of pneumoconiosis pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §718.202(a)
and total disability pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §718.204(c).  Accordingly, benefits
were denied.  On appeal, claimant generally contends that the administrative law
judge erred in weighing the evidence of record without making any specific
allegations of error.  The Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (the
Director), has chosen not to respond to this appeal.

     The Board's scope of review is defined by statute.  The administrative law
judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law must be affirmed if they are
supported by substantial evidence, are rational, and are in accordance with 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).

     In his brief, claimant generally contends that the administrative law judge
erred in weighing the evidence of record.  Claimant recites only the evidence of
record which is favorable to him and makes no specific allegations of error.[1]   The Board has consistently held that it will not
address any issues on appeal that are inadequately briefed.  Claimant must allege
with specificity any error of fact or law committed by the administrative law
judge. See 20 C.F.R. §802.211; Sarf v. Director, OWCP, 10 BLR
1-119 (1987); Slinker v. Peabody Coal Co., 6 BLR 1-465 (1983); Fish v.
Director, OWCP, 6 BLR 1-107 (1983).  As claimant's allegations are insufficient
to invoke Board review, the administrative law judge's findings that claimant
failed to establish the existence of pneumoconiosis and total disability are
affirmed.

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

     SO ORDERED.

                                                      
                         NANCY S. DOLDER, Acting Chief
                         Administrative Appeals Judge


                                                      
                         JAMES F. BROWN
                         Administrative Appeals Judge


                                                      
                         REGINA C. McGRANERY
                         Administrative Appeals Judge





Footnotes.
 1)Claimant mentions that the administrative law judge did not
apply the true doubt rule when weighing the x-ray evidence, however, he does not
support this statement with a full discussion of the x-ray evidence of record. 
Moreover, this argument is meritless in light of the fact that the administrative
law judge did not find the x-ray evidence to be equally probative. See
King v. Cannelton Industries, Inc., 8 BLR 1-146 (1985); Decision and Order
at 2.
 Back to Text