Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Crocetti v. Ceres Marine Term, 01-1074 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1074 Visitors: 55
Filed: Jul. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1074 NICHOLAS ANTONIO CROCETTI, Petitioner, versus CERES MARINE TERMINALS, INCORPORATED; DIREC- TOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (00-297) Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 16, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael C. Eisenste
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1074 NICHOLAS ANTONIO CROCETTI, Petitioner, versus CERES MARINE TERMINALS, INCORPORATED; DIREC- TOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (00-297) Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 16, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael C. Eisenstein, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. James M. Mesnard, SEYFARTH SHAW, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nicholas Antonio Crocetti seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award and computation of benefits pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Crocetti v. Ceres Marine Term., No. 00-297 (BRB Nov. 29, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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