[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________





        No. 96-2178



                                     MARIE EVANS,



                                     Petitioner,



                                          v.



                             BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION,



                                     Respondent.





                                 ____________________



                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER



                            OF THE BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD 



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________



                                 ____________________



            James W. Case and McTeague, Higbee,  MacAdam, Case, Watson & Cohen
            _____________     ________________________________________________

        on brief for petitioner.

            Michelle Jodoin  LaFond and Norman, Hanson  & DeTroy  on brief for
            _______________________     ________________________

        respondent.





                                 ____________________



                                  February 27, 1997

                                 ____________________



































                 Per Curiam.   Upon careful review  of the administrative
                 __________



            record  and  the  parties'   briefs,  we  conclude  that  the



            Administrative Law Judge's findings should not be overturned.



            Those findings, contrary to claimant's assertion of permanent



            work-related  elbow  and  respiratory  impairments,  must  be



            accepted because  they are supported by  substantial evidence



            in  the record considered  as a whole.   See Bath  Iron Works
                                                     ___ ________________



            Corp. v. White, 584 F.2d 569, 573 (1st Cir. 1978).
            _____    _____



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___







































































                                         -2-