UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CLARA C. CURRY,

Petitioner,

v.

NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK

No. 96-2573

CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR,

Respondents.

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

(95-2062)

Submitted: July 29, 1997

Decided: August 25, 1997

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John H. Klein, RUTTER & MONTAGNA, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia,

for Petitioner. Gerard E. W. Voyer, Donna White Kearney, TAYLOR

& WALKER, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Clara C. Curry appeals the decision of the Benefits Review Board

("Board") affirming the administrative law judge's ("ALJ") order

denying workers' compensation benefits under the Longshore and

Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("Act"), 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-950

(West 1986 & Supp. 1997).1 The only issue in this appeal is whether

substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Curry did not

sustain a work-related injury. We affirm.

On May 25, 1994, Curry was working in the reduction gear room

of the USS Caron washing engines and overhead piping. She claims

she was injured when she fell from the ladder on which she was

standing and broke the fall by grabbing a pipe. Although she felt

some pain in her left arm and shoulder, she continued working. The

next day, she claims she began to feel pain in the same area and when

it worsened, she asked her supervisor for a pass to go to First Aid.

Curry told neither her supervisor nor the doctor who examined her in

First Aid about her alleged accident on May 25.

The next day, Curry went to the emergency room at Sentara Hampton General Hospital where a doctor ordered x-rays and placed her in

a neck brace. She then visited her family doctor who restricted her

ability to work. Eventually she returned to full duty.

_________________________________________________________________

1 The Board issued no opinion in this case. On September 12, 1996, the

Board sent the parties a notice stating that pursuant to the provisions of

Pub. L. No. 104-134, enacted on April 26, 1996, all appeals to the Board

relating to claims under the Act were deemed to have been affirmed if

the case had been pending before the Board for one year by September

12, 1996. Because Curry's appeal met this criterion, the Board informed

the parties that the ALJ's decision effectively had been affirmed by the

Board on September 1, 1996, for purposes of their rights to obtain review

in this court.

 2
Valerie Prayer, Curry's co-worker, testified that she and Curry

worked in the same space on May 25, 1994, that there was no ladder

in the work space, and that she did not observe any accident.2 Prayer

said that the next day Curry complained about neck pain and said she

did not know the cause. Curry did not tell Prayer about the alleged

accident until a week or two later.

Another co-worker, Amy King, testified that she worked in the top

level of the engine room of the USS Caron on May 25 and 26, 1994,

while Curry and Prayer were working on the bottom level. She stated

that she did not witness an accident involving Curry and that Curry

did not tell her about any accident.

Section 20(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 920(a) (1994), establishes a

presumption that a longshoreman's claim is covered by the Act. "To

be entitled to the Section 20(a) presumption . . . , the claimant bears

the burden of proving that he has sustained a harm or pain, and that

working conditions existed or an accident occurred which could have

caused the harm or pain." Caudill v. Sea Tac Alaska Shipbuilding, 25

BRBS 92, 95 (1991); see also Kelaita v. Triple A Machine Shop, 13

BRBS 326, 331 (1981). Where a claimant shows that she has sustained an injury which might be work-related, the injury is presumed

to be linked to her employment. The burden then shifts to the

employer to rebut the presumption with substantial evidence that the

employee's condition was not caused or aggravated by her employment. See Rajotte v. General Dynamics Corp., 18 BRBS 85, 86

(1986).

The ALJ found that Curry failed to sustain her burden of proving

that an accident happened or that she was injured during an accident.

This court's examination is limited to errors of law and findings of

fact which are not supported by substantial evidence in the record as

a whole. See Voris v. Eikel, 346 U.S. 328, 333-34 (1953). We give

deference to the ALJ's credibility determinations and inferences from

the evidence, even if there are other, more reasonable conclusions that

may be drawn from the record. See See v. Washington Met. Area

Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994); Pittman Mechanical

_________________________________________________________________

2 The record reflects that the room was noisy and although Prayer and

Curry were working in the same room, they could not hear each other.

 3
Contractors, Inc. v. Director, 35 F.3d 122, 127 (4th Cir. 1994). Under

this deferential standard, we affirm the Board's summary affirmance

of the ALJ's decision because there is substantial evidence to support

the ALJ's findings.

The ALJ noted that Prayer, who was in the best position to observe

Curry and had "no apparent reason to lie," did not see Curry fall and

gave uncontradicted testimony that Curry did not tell her about having

an accident until days later. He also noted that King, who was working nearby, witnessed no accident. Because the only evidence that

Curry sustained a work-related injury during a fall from a ladder was

Curry's own testimony, and because the ALJ found her testimony to

be incredible, we find that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

The ALJ also concluded that, although he believed that Curry's

neck pain was real, this injury did not have any other work-related

cause. Curry's medical records report a work-related injury based on

Curry's own statements that she was injured while grabbing an overhead pipe as she fell from a ladder. No other work-related cause for

her injuries is suggested in the record and, as noted above, the ALJ

found Curry not to be a credible witness.

We find the ALJ's conclusion that Curry's alleged injuries were

not work-related is supported by substantial evidence. Consequently,

we affirm the Board's summary affirmance of the ALJ's decision. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 4