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)
14-2232•Francyne J. Cooper v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
14-2232Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 11, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2232
FRANCYNE J. COOPER,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING,
INCORPORATED,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board
(BRB No. 14-0039).
Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: May 11, 2015
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Francyne J. Cooper, Petitioner Pro Se. Helen Hart Cox, OFFICE
OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Washington, D.C.; Mark A.
Reinhalter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.;
Benjamin M. Mason, MASON, MASON, WALKER & HEDRICK, PC, Newport
News, Virginia, for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Francyne J. Cooper seeks review of the Benefits Review
Board’s order affirming the administrative law judge’s orders
denying her motion to set aside a settlement agreement under the
Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.
§§ 901-950 (2012), and denying reconsideration, and the Board’s
order denying reconsideration. Our review of the record
discloses that the Board’s decisions are based upon substantial
evidence and are without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
Cooper’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the
petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
Cooper v. Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., BRB No. 14-0039
(Aug. 5 & Oct. 7, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this 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.