Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Throne v. Newport News Shipbld, 96-1411 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1411 Visitors: 42
Filed: Aug. 27, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1411 LINE L. THRONE, Petitioner, versus NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COM- PANY; APPLIED CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED; S.G. BROWN, INCORPORATED; UNIVERSAL MARINE, INCOR- PORATED; UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY; ITT HARTFORD; COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-440) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1996 Before
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1411 LINE L. THRONE, Petitioner, versus NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COM- PANY; APPLIED CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED; S.G. BROWN, INCORPORATED; UNIVERSAL MARINE, INCOR- PORATED; UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY; ITT HARTFORD; COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-440) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 27, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Line L. Throne, Petitioner Pro Se. Lawrence Philip Postol, SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON, Washington, D.C.; Gerard E.W. Voyer, TAYLOR & WALKER, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia; Philip John Infantino, PENDER & COWARD, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Steven Harold Theisen, MIDKIFF & HINER, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order dismissing his appeal of the administrative law judge's denial of asbestosis benefits pursuant to 33 U.S.C.A. ยงยง 901-950. (West 1986 & Supp. 1996). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Throne v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., No. 96-440 (B.R.B., Feb. 29, 1996). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 3
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