Glenn Stewart v. Riverside Technology, Inc., No. 16-1891 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1891 GLENN A. STEWART, Petitioner, v. RIVERSIDE TECHNOLOGY, INCORPORATED; TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (15-0436) Submitted: February 28, 2017 Decided: March 14, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Hanley, Andrew Penny, CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES, PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Petitioner. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Maia S. Fisher, Associate Solicitor, Mark Reinhalter, Counsel for Longshore, Sean G. Bajkowski, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Matthew W. Boyle, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Glenn A. Stewart Board’s decision judge’s denial and of seeks order review affirming longshore 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 (2012). of the the disability Benefits Review administrative benefits pursuant law to 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 petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Stewart v. Riverside Tech., Inc., No. 15-0436 (B.R.B. June 6, 2016). dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2

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.