Case Name: NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Robert WAINWRIGHT; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-18
Citations: 161 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 05-1816
Parties: NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Robert WAINWRIGHT; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Robert WAINWRIGHT; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 05-1816.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 21, 2005.
Decided Jan. 18, 2006.
Lawrence P. Postol, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stephen F. Forbes, Forbes & Broadwell, Hampton, Virginia; Howard M. Radzely, Solicitor of Labor, Allen H. Feldman, Associate Solicitor, Mark Reinhalter, Counsel for Longshore, Matthew W. Boyle, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order af firming the order of the District Director compelling the payment of medical expenses under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901-950 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Board. See Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Wainwright, No. 04-0735 (B.R.B. June 16, 2005). 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