* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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.

1 United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

July 15, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60690 (Summary Calendar)

EDWARD C. CAMPBELL, Petitioner,

versus

LAKE CHARLES STEVEDORES, INC.; P&O PORTS TEXAS, INC.;
AND DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Appeal from the United States Department of Labor

Benefits Review Board
Case No. 01-LHC-1732, OWCP No. 07-158838

BRB No. 02-0500

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Edward C. Campbell petitions for review of the decision of the

Benefits Review Board of the United States Department of Labor

(“BRB”) affirming the decision of the ALJ, which denied Mr.

Campbell’s claim for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor

Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901, et seq. In his1 Ortco Contractors, Inc. v. Charpentier , 332 F.3d 283, 287

(5th Cir. 2003).

2 See id.

3 See id. at 288-89.

4 Id. at 290.

2 petition, Mr. Campbell, in effect, challenges the sufficiency of

the evidence to support the denial of his disability benefits

claim. Our review of a decision of the BRB is limited in scope to

“considering errors of law and making certain that the BRB adhered

to its statutory standard of review of factual determinations, that

is, whether the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by substantial

evidence and [are] consistent with the law.” 1

The ke y issue before the ALJ was whether Mr. Campbell’s

disab ility was caused by (1) a work-related injury or (2)

circumstances unrelated to his job. The ALJ found that, even

though Mr. Campbell had met his burden of establishing a prima

facie case for benefits, 2 his employer successfull y rebutted that

presumption by adducing substantial evidence to show that Mr.

Campbell’s injury was pre-existing and that it was not exacerbated

by his work-related trauma. 3 As a result, the ALJ was obligated to

assess the issue of causation by looking at a ll of the record

evidence, which he did. 4 After doing so, the ALJ concluded that

the weight of the credible testimony and medical evidence

demonstrated that Mr. Campbell had failed to establish a sufficient

relationship between the work trauma that he had experienced and5 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral

argument. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2).

3 the disability for which he was asserting a claim for benefits.

Thus, Mr. Campbell’s claim was denied because he ultimately failed

to meet his burden of proof. In affirming the ALJ’s decision, the

BRB concluded that the ALJ appropriately weighed the evidence and

that his decision was supported by the record.

Having re viewed the arguments and authorities cited in the

parties’ briefs, the record on appeal, and the extensive,

comprehensive and well-reasoned decisions of both the ALJ and BRB, 5

we conclude that Mr. Campbell’s petition must be

DENIED.