Court Opinion

ID: 2964542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:12.221421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:19.816420
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2178

                                     MARIE EVANS,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                             BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER

                            OF THE BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD 

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            James W. Case and McTeague, Higbee,  MacAdam, Case, Watson & Cohen
            _____________     ________________________________________________
        on brief for petitioner.
            Michelle Jodoin  LaFond and Norman, Hanson  & DeTroy  on brief for
            _______________________     ________________________
        respondent.

                                 ____________________

                                  February 27, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Upon careful review  of the administrative
                 __________

            record  and  the  parties'   briefs,  we  conclude  that  the

            Administrative Law Judge's findings should not be overturned.

            Those findings, contrary to claimant's assertion of permanent

            work-related  elbow  and  respiratory  impairments,  must  be

            accepted because  they are supported by  substantial evidence

            in  the record considered  as a whole.   See Bath  Iron Works
                                                     ___ ________________

            Corp. v. White, 584 F.2d 569, 573 (1st Cir. 1978).
            _____    _____

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-