Newport News Shipbld v. Young

Fourth Circuit

Newport News Shipbld v. Young

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 28, 2003

Docket00-2452

StatusUnpublished

This text of Newport News Shipbld v. Young (Newport News Shipbld v. Young) 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

Newport News Shipbld v. Young, (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2452

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY,

Petitioner,

versus

THOMAS YOUNG; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (00-115)

Submitted: April 10, 2001 Decided: August 28, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan H. Walker, Christopher R. Hedrick, MASON, COWARDIN & MASON, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Petitioner. Judith E. Kramer, Carol A. De Deo, Mark A. Reinhalter, Julia Mankata, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C. for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company seeks review of

the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the

Administrative Law Judge’s order denying partial relief under §

8(f) of The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33

U.S.C.A. §§ 901-950 (West 1986 & Supp. 2000). Our review of the

record discloses that the Board’s decision is without reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny as

moot the Employer’s motion to hold the case in abeyance pending

resolution of Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Winn, 326

F.3d 427 (4th Cir. 2003); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.

v. Ward, 326 F.3d 434 (4th Cir. 2003); Newport News Shipbuilding &

Dry Dock Co. v. Cherry, 326 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2003); and Newport

News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Pounders, 326 F.3d 455 (4th

Cir. 2003). 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