Case ID: f-appx_310/html/0459-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dora L. STANHOPE, Widow of Enos v. Stanhope, Claimant-Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Electric Boat Corporation, Respondents.
    No. 07-3560-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 18, 2009.
    Carolyn P. Kelly (Amy M. Stone, on the brief), O’Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly & Morris, P.C., Groton, CT, for Claimant Petitioner.
    Peter A. Clarkin, McKenney, Quigley, Izzo & Clarkin, Providence, R.I., for Employer-Respondent.
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, LORETTA A. PRESKA, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Loretta A. Preska, United Slates District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY 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.