Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

G.R. v. APM Terminals Incorporated, 08-2317 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-2317 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 30, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2317 G.R., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; APM TERMINALS, INCORPORATED; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (08-0435) Submitted: September 9, 2009 Decided: September 30, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Bennett Eisenstein, Ba
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2317 G.R., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; APM TERMINALS, INCORPORATED; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (08-0435) Submitted: September 9, 2009 Decided: September 30, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Bennett Eisenstein, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Lawrence P. Postol, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Washington, D.C., for Respondents APM Terminals, Incorporated, and Signal Mutual Indemnity Association, Limited. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: G.R. seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of longshore disability benefits pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 (2006). 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. G.R. v. APM Terminals, Inc., No. 08-0435 (B.R.B. Sept. 29, 2008). 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