G.R. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

Fourth Circuit

G.R. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

332 F. App'x 902

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 2009

DocketNo. 08-2317

StatusPublished

This text of 332 F. App'x 902 (G.R. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

G.R. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 332 F. App'x 902 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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 [903]*903the 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.

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

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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 [903]*903the 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 F. App'x 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gr-v-director-office-of-workers-compensation-programs-ca4-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack