Court Opinion

ID: 2964494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:26:30.179364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:55.476906
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [Not for Publication]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2054

                                 FRANCES L. CRAWFORD,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                           AND BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                           PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
                  OF THE BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Gary Gabree  with whom Stinson, Lupton,  Weiss &  Gabree, P.A. was
            ___________            _______________________________________
        on brief for petitioner.
            Stephen  Hessert with whom  Norman, Hanson  & DeTroy  was on brief
            ________________            ________________________
        for respondent.

                                 ____________________

                                   January 27, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Petitioner Frances L. Crawford  seeks
                      Per Curiam
                      __________

            review  of a final order  of the Benefits  Review Board ("the

            Board") affirming  a decision of an  administrative law judge

            ("ALJ") that  denied her claim for  disability benefits under

            the Longshore and Harbor Workers'  Act ("the Act"), 33 U.S.C.

               901 et seq.   The ALJ's decision was affirmed as  a matter
                   __ ____

            of  law when  the Board did  not act  on the  appeal within a

            year.1   Thus, the  Board left  undisturbed the  ALJ's ruling

            that Crawford  was not  entitled to  benefits  under the  Act

            because she fell within the occupational status exclusion set

            forth   in  33   U.S.C.    902(3)(A)  (excluding   from  term

            "employee"  "individuals  employed  exclusively   to  perform

            office  clerical, secretarial,  security, or  data processing

            work").

                      "[T]he  ALJ's  findings of  fact are  conclusive if

            supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as

            a  whole."   Levins  v. Benefits  Review  Bd., U.S.  Dep't of
                         ______     _____________________________________

            Labor,  724 F.2d  4, 6  (1st  Cir. 1984).   We  may, however,
            _____

            review  the Board's order for errors of  law.  See id.  Here,
                                                           ___ ___

            the  ALJ  supportably found  that,  as  a "computer  operator

            clerk,"  Crawford  spent  most of  her  time  in  front of  a

            computer terminal  and the rest filing  and carrying magnetic

            tapes to and from the computer room.  Her subsequent position

                                
            ____________________

            1.  See Omnibus Appropriations for  Fiscal Year 1996, Pub. L.
                ___
            No. 104-134 (enacted April 26, 1996).

                                         -2-
                                          2

            as  a  "technical  clerk"  required  her to  file,  roll  and

            catalogue  blueprints,  take  blueprints  to  a  reproduction

            office   and   to  the   mailroom   of   the  Supervisor   of

            Shipbuilding's  office,  and to  read  blueprint measurements

            over  the telephone to engineers  when they did  not have the

            blueprints  with them.   Such  duties indicate  that Crawford

            plainly falls within the  "clerical employee" exclusion found

            in 33 U.S.C.   902(3)(A).

                      Affirmed.
                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -3-
                                          3