Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 13-2258
Submitted:
Decided:
April 9, 2014
Richard
P.
Salloum,
FRANKE
&
SALLOUM,
PLLC,
Gulfport,
Mississippi, for Petitioners.
E. Paul Gibson, E. PAUL GIBSON,
P.C., Charleston, South Carolina; Betty English, OFFICE OF THE
SOLICITOR
GENERAL,
Washington,
D.C.;
Mark
A.
Reinhalter,
Jonathan Peter Rolfe, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
PER CURIAM:
SSA
Cooper,
LLC
(employer)
seeks
review
of
the
to
Lamont
Brown
pursuant
to
33
U.S.C.
901-950
(2012).
Dir.,
Office
of
Workers
Comp.
Programs
v.
Greenwich
Finally, employer
allowed
him
to
return
to
longshore
work
with
medical
for review.
We
review
BRB
decisions
for
errors
of
law
and
to
for
reviewing
the
ALJs
factual
findings.
Ceres
Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Green, 656 F.3d 235, 239 (4th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
of
the
ALJ
evidence.
deference
must
Review
is
due
be
of
to
affirmed
legal
the
if
supported
questions
Boards
2
legal
is
de
by
substantial
novo,
conclusions.
and
no
Id.
The court
mind
might
accept
as
adequate
to
support
Employer
argues that the ALJ applied the true doubt rule, which was
held inapplicable to cases under the LHWCA.
We disagree.
The
considered
condition.
the
different
opinions
regarding
Browns
and
the
ALJ
properly
concluded
that
Brown
could
not
which
exemption.
he
is
capable
of
performing
without
an
(J.A. 599).
on
medical
restrictions.
Moreover,
4
as
the
ALJ
noted,
Brown
produced
letter
from
the
union
stating
that
were
no
waterfront.
light
duty
or
sedentary
positions
on
the
is
based
upon
substantial
evidence
and
is
without
reversible error.
We
oral
dispense
contentions
with
are
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED