Jesse Cooley, Jr. v. DOWCP

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 3, 2018
• Docket: 18-60020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 18-60020 Document: 00514585496 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 18-60020 FILED Summary Calendar August 3, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JESSE COOLEY, JR.,

Petitioner

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED - PASCAGOULA OPERATIONS,

Respondents

Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board BRB No. 17-0094

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jesse Cooley Jr. filed a claim against Huntington Ingalls Incorporated under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. Cooley alleged that he contracted a permanently disabling lung disease due to prolonged exposure to asbestos while working for Huntington.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-60020 Document: 00514585496 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2018

No. 18-60020 The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied Cooley’s claim after considering conflicting medical opinions of whether Cooley actually suffered from asbestosis or an asbestos-related lung condition. The Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) affirmed the ALJ’s denial of Cooley’s claim. Cooley petitioned to this court for review of the decision. “[O]nce the BRB affirms an order of the ALJ, we need only inquire whether the BRB ‘correctly concluded that the ALJ’s order was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and is in accordance with the law.’” Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Dir., OWCP, 614 F.3d 179, 185 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Dir., OWCP, 991 F.2d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1993)). Cooley argues that the ALJ lacked sufficient evidence to deny his claim and should have relied on the evidence that he does suffer from asbestosis. Construing Cooley’s pro se brief liberally, he nonetheless fails to demonstrate that the ALJ erroneously relied on the opposing medical opinions. The BRB therefore did not err when it concluded that the ALJ’s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. We DENY the petition for review. Cooley’s motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED.