Filed: Aug. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-60414 (Summary Calendar) MELINDA S. BLACK Petitioner, v. MARATHON OIL COMPANY; ITT HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Respondents Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board (BRB 98-0163A) July 31, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this petition for review of an order of the Benefits Review Board (“t
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-60414 (Summary Calendar) MELINDA S. BLACK Petitioner, v. MARATHON OIL COMPANY; ITT HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Respondents Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board (BRB 98-0163A) July 31, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this petition for review of an order of the Benefits Review Board (“th..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60414
(Summary Calendar)
MELINDA S. BLACK
Petitioner,
v.
MARATHON OIL COMPANY; ITT HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY; DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Respondents
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board
(BRB 98-0163A)
July 31, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this petition for review of an order of the Benefits Review
Board (“the Board”), Petitioner Melinda S. Black asks us to reverse
the Board’s affirming of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)
Decision and Order denying benefits, on the grounds that the Board
and the ALJ failed properly to apply the presumption required under
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. Rule 47.5.4.
33 U.S.C. § 920 or, in the alternative, that the evidence was not
properly evaluated by the ALJ. This suit was filed pursuant to the
Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended, 33
U.S.C. § 901 et seq. (“the Act”) against Respondents Marathon Oil
Co. and I.T.T. Hartford Insurance Co. (“Marathon Oil”). Having
carefully and fully considered the record and the briefs of counsel
under the deferential substantial evidence standard, we affirm the
decision of the Benefits Review Board for essentially the same
reasons set forth in the Board’s opinion.
AFFIRMED.