Case Name: NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Alvin MINOR; 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: 2004-12-15
Citations: 115 F. App'x 141
Docket Number: No. 03-2196
Parties: NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Alvin MINOR; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 141–141

Head Matter:
NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Alvin MINOR; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 03-2196.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 31, 2004.
Decided Dec. 15, 2004.
Christopher R. Hedrick, Mason, Mason, Walker & Hedrick, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Petitioner. John H. Klein, Montagna Breit Klein Camden, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondent Minor.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition for review denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's finding that Alvin Minor was entitled to an additional permanent partial disability rating of six percent pursuant to § 8(c) of 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 on the reasoning of the Board. See Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Minor, BRB No. 02-0850 (BRB Aug. 27, 2003). 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.
The petition for review is accordingly
DENIED.