Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cammilleri v. Tecnico Corporation, 08-1114 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1114 Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 18, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1114 CHARLES CAMMILLERI, Petitioner, v. TECNICO CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0550) Submitted: September 8, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1114 CHARLES CAMMILLERI, Petitioner, v. TECNICO CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0550) Submitted: September 8, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Klein, Charlene A. Morring, MONTAGNA KLEIN CAMDEN L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia, for Petitioner. R. John Barrett, Lisa L. Thatch, VANDEVENTER & BLACK LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; Matthew W. Boyle, Mark A. Reinhalter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Cammilleri seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of longshore disability benefits pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Cammilleri v. Tecnico Corp., No. 07-0550 (B.R.B. Dec. 13, 2007). 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 decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 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