Container Stevedoring Co. v. Stevedoring Services of America

Ninth Circuit

Container Stevedoring Co. v. Stevedoring Services of America

311 F. App'x 8

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 23, 2008·No. No. 06-72757·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

There may be parts of the Benefits Review Board’s (Board) April 17, 1998, decision that could be interpreted as a reweighing of the evidence in violation of Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation v. Campbell Indus., 678 F.2d 836, 838 (9th Cir.1982) (subsequent history omitted). A fair reading of the Board opinion, with appropriate deference given to the Board, leads us to conclude that re-weighing did not occur.

We hold that the Board was correct in determining that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not adequately consider the aggravation standard. See Kelaita v. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 799 F.2d 1308, 1311 (9th Cir.1986). The Board directed the ALJ to employ the appropriate legal standard and then to review the evidence under that standard. As stated by the Board, the remand was “for reconsideration [by the ALJ] of the issue under the proper legal standards.”

PETITION DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

*

There may be parts of the Benefits Review Board’s (Board) April 17, 1998, decision that could be interpreted as a reweighing of the evidence in violation of Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation v. Campbell Indus., 678 F.2d 836, 838 (9th Cir.1982) (subsequent history omitted). A fair reading of the Board opinion, with appropriate deference given to the Board, leads us to conclude that re-weighing did not occur.

We hold that the Board was correct in determining that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not adequately consider the aggravation standard. See Kelaita v. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 799 F.2d 1308, 1311 (9th Cir.1986). The Board directed the ALJ to employ the appropriate legal standard and then to review the evidence under that standard. As stated by the Board, the remand was “for reconsideration [by the ALJ] of the issue under the proper legal standards.”

PETITION DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Container Stevedoring Co. v. Stevedoring Services of America, 311 F. App'x 8 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

311 F. App'x 8 (Container Stevedoring Co. v. Stevedoring Services of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related