Wells v. BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 14, 2009
• Docket: 08-2315
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2315

CAROLYN WELLS,

Petitioner,

v.

BAE SYSTEMS NORFOLK SHIP REPAIR; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (08-0280)

Submitted: July 7, 2009 Decided: August 14, 2009

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carolyn Wells, Petitioner Pro Se. Dana Rosen, CLARKE, DOLPH, RAPAPORT, HULL, BRUNICK & GARRIOTT, PLC, Norfolk, Virginia; Betty English, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Washington, D.C., Mark A. Reinhalter, Ann Marie Scarpino, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., Thomas O. Shepherd, Jr., BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Carolyn Wells seeks review of the Benefits Review

Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law

judge’s decision and order on modification remand, 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 in accordance with the law. See Consolidation Coal Co. v.

Held, 314 F.3d 184, 186 (4th Cir. 2002); Lane v. Union Carbide

Corp., 105 F.3d 166, 170 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, although

we grant Wells’ application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny Wells’ petition for review. 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.

DENIED