Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01891/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01891-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
Respondent
Riverside Technology, Incorporated
Respondent
Glenn A. Stewart
Petitioner
Transportation Insurance
Respondent

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1891

GLENN A. STEWART,

Petitioner,

v.

RIVERSIDE TECHNOLOGY, INCORPORATED; TRANSPORTATION 

INSURANCE; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. 

(15-0436)

Submitted: February 28, 2017 Decided: March 14, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Hanley, Andrew Penny, CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & 

EDES, PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Petitioner. 

M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Maia S. Fisher, Associate 

Solicitor, Mark Reinhalter, Counsel for Longshore, Sean G.

Bajkowski, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Matthew W. Boyle, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1891 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/14/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Glenn A. Stewart seeks review of the Benefits Review 

Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law 

judge’s denial of longshore disability benefits pursuant to 

33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 (2012). Our review of the record discloses 

that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and 

is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition 

for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Stewart v. 

Riverside Tech., Inc., No. 15-0436 (B.R.B. June 6, 2016). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 16-1891 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/14/2017 Pg: 2 of 2