
    James GRIMMETT, Petitioner, v. ARCH OF WEST VIRGINIA/APOGEE COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
    No. 00-2379.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2001.
    Decided April 4, 2001.
    S.F. Raymond Smith, Rundle & Rundle, L.C., Pineville, WV, for petitioner.
    William S. Mattingly, Jackson & Kelly, P.L.L.C., Morgantown, WV, for respondents.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   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, 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.  