Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Newport News Shipbld v. Smith, 99-2060 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2060 Visitors: 87
Filed: May 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2060 NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, versus WILLIAM D. SMITH; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPART- MENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (No. 98-970-BLA) Submitted: March 28, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan H
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2060 NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, versus WILLIAM D. SMITH; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPART- MENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (No. 98-970-BLA) Submitted: March 28, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan H. Walker, MASON, COWARDIN & MASON, Newport News, Vir- ginia, for Petitioner. Robert E. Walsh, RUTTER, WALSH, MILLS & RUTTER, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order reversing the admin- istrative law judge and granting temporary total disability bene- fits under the Long Shore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Newport News Shipbuilding v. Smith, No. 98-970-BLA (BRB Mar. 18 & June 24, 1999). We deny the motion for summary affirmance as moot. We dis- pense 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer