1 Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-60012

Summary Calendar

TRINITY MARINE GROUP, INC. and RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY CO.,

Petitioners,

VERSUS

EDWARD JOLLY,

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order

of the Benefits Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor

(97-430)

September 16, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges

JOHN M. DUHÉ, JR., Circuit Judge: 1

Appellee worked for Appellant as a shipfitter when he fell and

injured his back. The ALJ awarded Appellee both temporary and

permanent disability benefits. The Benefits Review Board affirmed

the ALJ. We too affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 1992, Edward Jolly (“Jolly”) began working for Trinity

Marine Group (“Trinity”) as a shipfitter. Before starting work,

Jolly underwent a physical and was assigned a rating of Class I2

despite injuring his back in 1984 . On March 15, 1994, while

working, Jolly fell into an u ncovered hole in the main deck of a

vessel under construction. He injured his back and a rib. Trinity

voluntarily paid Jolly temporary total disability benefits for five

months, but Jolly sought additional benefits. The administrative

law judge (“ ALJ”) awarded him one month’s temporary partial

disability benefits, eight months’ temporary total disability

benefits and permanent partial disability benefits fr om December

23, 1994 to the present. The ALJ further awarded Jolly medical

benefits and interest. Trinity appealed the ALJ’s decision to the

Benefits Review Board (“BRB”). The BRB affirmed . Trinity now

appeals to this Court.

ANALYSIS

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The BRB may not r eview the evidence before it d e novo or

substitute its views for the ALJ’s. M ijangos v. Avondale

Shipyards, Inc.

, 948 F.2d 941, 944 (5th Cir.1991). Rather, the BRB

must accept the ALJ’s fact findings unless they are irrational, or

if after considering the record as a whole, they are unsupported by

substantial evidence. I d. ( citing 33 U .S.C. § 921(b)(3)).

Therefore, when we review the BRB’s decisions, our "’only function

is to correct errors of law and to determine if the BRB adhered to

its proper scope of review--i.e., has the Board deferred to the

ALJ's fact-finding or has it unde rtaken d e novo review and

substituted its views for the ALJ's.’" C eres Marine Terminal v.

Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation, U.S. Dep’t of Labor

, 1183

F.3d 387, 389 (5th Cir. 1997) ( citing

, Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v.

Vinson , 623 F.2d 1117, 1119 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1980)). In conducting

our review, we must independently examine the record to determine

whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings. Id.

Trinity argues that the ALJ made three errors. First, it

argues that the ALJ incorrectly found that Jolly’s disability was

causally related to his injury at Trinity. Second, it argues that

the ALJ erred in refusing to allow Trinity’s vocational consultant

to testify to Jolly’s post-injury employment possibilities and his

ability to perform the duties thereof. Third, it argues that the

ALJ erred in finding that Jolly had a residual wage earning

capacity equal to minimum wage. Having reviewed the record and the

ALJ’s and BRB’s opinions, we hold that the ALJ’s findings are

supported by substantial evidence, and he committed no reversible

error.

We AFFIRM.