Court Opinion

ID: 9813251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:59:07.011753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:14.543439
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the result for the sole reason outlined below.
The Benefits Review Board, on p.4 of its decision (J.A. 32), gave a reason to support its holding as the medical opinion relied on by Newport News “is insufficient to estab*455lish the claimant’s hearing loss and prior two back injuries are pre-existing permanent partial disabilities, we affirm the administrative law judge’s finding that employer did not establish this element of § 8(f) relief.” That finding of the Board is supported by its evidentiary finding that “the [physical] restrictions expired three years before the 1995 injury and there was no evidence that these injuries disabled claimant at all once the restrictions expired.” (J.A. 32). Thus, this decision by the Board is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, I concur in the result, as stated.
Especially, however, I do not agree with the insertion of Part III.B of the opinion of the majority, which is acknowledged as unnecessary, even by the majority, and as to its inclusion in the majority opinion, I respectfully dissent. The Harcum-Car-mines rule is tangled enough, even without further discussion.