The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-2317•G.r. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs
08-2317Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 30, 2009
UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.