Stuart Thompson v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1089
STUART THOMPSON,
Petitioner,
v.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE
OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(BRB-10-0168)
Submitted: August 31, 2011 Decided: September 27, 2011
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory E. Camden, MONTAGNA KLEIN CAMDEN LLP, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Jonathan H. Walker, MASON, MASON, WALKER &
HEDRICK, PC, Newport News, Virginia, for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Stuart Thompson appeals the order of the Benefits
Review Board (“the Board”) reversing the decision of the
District Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs awarding attorney’s fees to Thompson’s counsel from
Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding (“the Employer”) and remanding for
consideration of Thompson’s liability for attorney’s fees. This
court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders of the
Board. 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) (2006); see Eggers v. Clinchfield
Coal Co., 11 F.3d 35, 38 (4th Cir. 1993) (“The finality
requirement contained in § 921 encompasses the same concepts as
finality in 28 U.S.C. § 1291 [(2006)].”). Because the Board did
not determine the amount of the attorney’s fees and remanded the
case for further proceedings, the Board’s order is not a final
order. See John v. Barron, 897 F.2d 1387, 1390 (7th Cir. 1990)
(“An award of attorneys’ fees which does not fix the amount of
the award or specify a formula allowing the amount to be
computed is not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291.”); Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Bath Iron
Works Corp., 853 F.2d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1988) (holding that
“order remanding . . . to an ALJ for further findings is not, in
general, immediately appealable under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c)”);
Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Brodka, 643 F.2d 159,
161 (3d Cir. 1981) (finding appeal premature where Board “made a

-- 2 of 3 --

3
determination of liability for attorney’s fees but . . .
remanded the case to the deputy commissioner to determine the
amount”).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for
lack of jurisdiction. 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 DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --