Evans v. Bath
Case Date: 02/27/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-2178
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-2178 MARIE EVANS, Petitioner, v. BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION, Respondent.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- |