U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2000

Norfolk Shipbuilding v. Flowers

Norfolk Shipbuilding v. Flowers
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 7, 2000

Norfolk Shipbuilding v. Flowers

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1223

NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CORPORATION, Petitioner, versus

FRANK FLOWERS; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPART- MENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (99-463-BLA)

Submitted: August 29, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerard E.W. Voyer, Donna White Kearney, TAYLOR & WALKER, P.C., Nor- folk, Virginia, for Petitioner. John H. Klein, Amanda R. Kronin, MONTAGNA, KLEIN & CAMDEN, Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corporation seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s (“Board”) final decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of permanent partial disability benefits on second remand pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-50 (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 Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Flowers, No. 99-463-BLA (BRB Jan. 28, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.