Opinion ID: 213976
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: “We review the Board’s factual findings under a substantial evidence standard.” Sara Lee Bakery Grp., Inc. v. NLRB, 514 F.3d 422, 428 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Selkirk Metalbestos, N. Am., Eljer Mfg., Inc. v. NLRB, 116 F.3d 782, 786 (5th Cir. 1997)). “The Supreme Court has defined substantial evidence as more than a scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). As another circuit recently commented, under this standard: [O]ur job is something like the role of the instant-replay booth in football: the call on the field presumptively stands and we may overturn it only if we can fairly say that no reasonable mind could, looking at the facts again, stand by that call. So it is that we, like the instant-replay official, often affirm decisions that we might not have made ourselves. Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., Local 578 v. NLRB, 594 F.3d 732, 739 (10th Cir. 2010). When the NLRB does not accept the findings of the ALJ we have “an obligation to examine the evidence and findings of the Board more critically than [we] would if the Board and the ALJ were in agreement.” NLRB v. Fla. Med. Ctr., Inc., 576 F.2d 666, 674 (5th Cir. 1978). “Although this heightened scrutiny does not alter the substantial evidence standard of review, it does require us to apply it with a particularly keen eye, especially when credibility determinations are in issue . . . .” Garcia v. Sec’y of Labor, 10 F.3d 276, 280 (5th Cir. 1993). 6 Case: 10-60762 Document: 00511435084 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/05/2011 No. 10-60762