M.m., widow of N.M. v. Universal Maritime Apm Terminals

08-2304Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit30.11.2009

Gesamter Gesetzestext

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2304
M.M., widow of N.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
UNIVERSAL MARITIME APM TERMINALS; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY
ASSOCIATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS,
Respondents.
No. 08-2312
UNIVERSAL MARITIME APM TERMINALS; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioners,
v.
M.M., widow of N.M.,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review
Board. (BRB-08-0213; BRB-08-0213A; BRB-08-0212; BRB-08-0212A)
Submitted: October 27, 2009 Decided: November 30, 2009
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce Bennett Eisenstein, EISENSTEIN LAW OFFICES, Baltimore,
Maryland, for M.M., widow of N.M. Lawrence Philip Postol,
SEYFARTH & SHAW, Washington, D.C., for Universal Maritime APM
Terminals and Signal Mutual Indemnity Association; Kathleen
Hwang Kim, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.,
for DOWCP.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
M.M., widow of N.M., 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 (2006). Universal Maritime APM Terminals
seeks review of the administrative law judge’s denial of its
request to submit additional evidence on remand. 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 petitions for review for the reasons
stated by the Board. M.M. v. Universal Maritime APM Terminals,
Nos. BRB-08-0213; BRB-08-0213A; and Universal Maritime APM
Terminals v. M.M., Nos. BRB-08-0212; BRB-08-0212A (Sept. 30,
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.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.