Stanhope v. United States Department of Labor

Second Circuit

Stanhope v. United States Department of Labor

310 F. App'x 459

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 18, 2009

DocketNo. 07-3560-ag

StatusPublished

This text of 310 F. App'x 459 (Stanhope v. United States Department of Labor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stanhope v. United States Department of Labor, 310 F. App'x 459 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[460]*460SUMMARY ORDER

Claimant-petitioner Dora Stanhope, dependent widow of Enos Stanhope, petition for review of a Decision and Order of the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) dated June 27, 2007, affirming the Decision and Order of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) dated August 3, 2006, dismissing her claim for death benefits under Section 9 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 909. Upon review, we conclude that the AL J’s conclusions that Electric Boat successfully rebutted the Section 920(a) presumption were afflicted with the same problems that caused us to reverse in Rainey v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation, 517 F.3d 632 (2d Cir.2008). Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review and REVERSE and REMAND to the BRB for a determination of benefits in line with Rai-ney.

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

[460]*460SUMMARY ORDER

Claimant-petitioner Dora Stanhope, dependent widow of Enos Stanhope, petition for review of a Decision and Order of the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) dated June 27, 2007, affirming the Decision and Order of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) dated August 3, 2006, dismissing her claim for death benefits under Section 9 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 909. Upon review, we conclude that the AL J’s conclusions that Electric Boat successfully rebutted the Section 920(a) presumption were afflicted with the same problems that caused us to reverse in Rainey v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation, 517 F.3d 632 (2d Cir.2008). Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review and REVERSE and REMAND to the BRB for a determination of benefits in line with Rai-ney.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 F. App'x 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanhope-v-united-states-department-of-labor-ca2-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack