M. M. v. Universal Maritime APM Termina, No. 08-2304 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2304 M.M., widow of N.M., Petitioner, v. UNIVERSAL MARITIME APM TERMINALS; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. No. 08-2312 UNIVERSAL MARITIME APM TERMINALS; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, v. M.M., widow of N.M., Respondent. On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (BRB-08-0213; BRB-08-0213A; BRB-08-0212; BRB-08-0212A) Submitted: October 27, 2009 Decided: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. November 30, 2009 Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Bennett Eisenstein, EISENSTEIN LAW OFFICES, Baltimore, Maryland, for M.M., widow of N.M. Lawrence Philip Postol, SEYFARTH & SHAW, Washington, D.C., for Universal Maritime APM Terminals and Signal Mutual Indemnity Association; Kathleen Hwang Kim, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for DOWCP. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: M.M., widow of N.M., seeks review of the Benefits Review Board s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge s denial of longshore disability benefits pursuant to 33 U.S.C. ยงยง 901-950 (2006). Universal Maritime APM Terminals seeks review of the administrative law judge s denial of its request to submit additional evidence on remand. Our review of the record discloses that the Board s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Nos. BRB-08-0213; Terminals 2008). legal before v. M.M. v. Universal Maritime APM Terminals, BRB-08-0213A; M.M., Nos. and BRB-08-0212; Universal Maritime BRB-08-0212A (Sept. APM 30, We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. PETITIONS DENIED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.