Halter Marine v. Necaise

Fifth Circuit

Halter Marine v. Necaise

235 F. App'x 316

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 2007

Docket06-60602

StatusUnpublished

This text of 235 F. App'x 316 (Halter Marine v. Necaise) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Halter Marine v. Necaise, 235 F. App'x 316 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

This court has considered the appeal in light of the briefs, argument of counsel, and pertinent authorities and portions of the record. Having done so, we DENY the petition for review. The Benefits Review Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and involves no error of law. The employer did not satisfy its burden of showing, on the facts of this case, that suitable employment for Necaise was “reasonably available” because Necaise was able to perform short-term light duty work. See Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Hord, 193 F.3d 797 (4th Cir.1999).

PETITION DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

This court has considered the appeal in light of the briefs, argument of counsel, and pertinent authorities and portions of the record. Having done so, we DENY the petition for review. The Benefits Review Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and involves no error of law. The employer did not satisfy its burden of showing, on the facts of this case, that suitable employment for Necaise was “reasonably available” because Necaise was able to perform short-term light duty work. See Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Hord, 193 F.3d 797 (4th Cir.1999).

PETITION DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 F. App'x 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halter-marine-v-necaise-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack