Court Opinion

ID: 991740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:41:23.316755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:57:48.131885
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JAMES DICKERSON,
Petitioner,

v.                                       No. 96-2527

MAERSK CONTAINER SERVICE,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board.
(No. 94-771)

Submitted: March 13, 1997

Decided: March 21, 1997
Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

E. Paul Gibson, Allison A. Stover, RIESEN LAW FIRM, L.L.P.,
North Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Stephen E.
Darling,
SINKLER & BOYD, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Respon-
dent.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James Dickerson seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's
decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's ("ALJ")
denial of workers' compensation benefits. Because we find that the
Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without
reversible error, we affirm.
Dickerson was a longshoreman, and it is undisputed that he injured
his shoulder at work in April 1990. Dickerson did not work from
April 1990 until October 12, 1990, when his treating physician
cleared him to go back to work.* After about two weeks, however,
Dickerson began complaining of pain in his shoulder and missed time
from work. Dickerson worked intermittently from October 1990 until
May 1991. During this period, Dickerson missed several days of
work, and his treating physician limited the type of work Dickerson
could do. Dickerson admitted that these limitations kept him from
doing the type of work he used to perform and thus limited the num-
ber of days he could work. Dickerson's treating physician released
him from treatment in May 1991 and assigned him a 30% impairment
rating. Dickerson filed a claim for additional benefits in March
1992,
covering the period from October 1990 until May 1991. The ALJ
denied Dickerson's claim on the ground that it was time-barred.
Dickerson concedes that the ALJ's decision must be affirmed if it
is rational, in accordance with the law, and there is substantial
evi-
dence to support it. 33 U.S.C. § 921 (1994); Banks v. Chicago Grain
Trimmers Ass'n, 390 U.S. 459, 467 (1968). This court reviews the
Board's decision for errors of law and deviations from the
statutory
conclusiveness afforded to the ALJ's findings. See v. Washington
Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994).

There is a one year statute of limitations on all claims for
workers'
compensation benefits which commences on the date that the claim-
ant knew or should have known that his injury was likely to impair
_________________________________________________________________
*Dickerson received total benefits during this period. However, the
payments stopped after Dickerson was cleared to return to work.

                                 2
his earning capacity. 33 U.S.C. § 913 (1994); Newport News Ship-
building & Dry Dock Co. v. Parker, 935 F.2d 20, 27 (4th Cir. 1991).
While Dickerson may not have known the extent of his impairment
until May 1991, we find substantial evidence supports the ALJ's
find-
ing that Dickerson knew or should have known that he was impaired
to some degree in October 1990, when he began missing significant
amounts of work and when his treating physician limited the types
of
work he could perform due to his shoulder injury. Moreover, the ALJ
properly concluded that the statute of limitations commenced in
Octo-
ber 1990, making Dickerson's claim filed in May 1992 untimely.

We therefore affirm the order of the Benefits Review Board. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
                                 3