Alvin Stewart v. DOWCP, et al, No. 13-60509 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 20, 2014.
Download PDF
Case: 13-60509 Document: 00512495280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-60509 Summary Calendar FILED January 9, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ALVIN STEWART, Petitioner v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; TIGRESS ENVIRONMENTAL & DOCKSIDE SERVICES; LOUISIANA WORKERS COMPENSATION CORPORATION, Respondents Petition for Review from the Benefits Review Board BRB No. 12-0425 Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Alvin Stewart petitions for review of an adverse decision by the Benefits Review Board ( BRB ) regarding his Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act claim. However, the only issue he briefs pertains to Dr. Bernard, to whom Stewart was sent for an independent evaluation after Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 13-60509 Document: 00512495280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2014 No. 13-60509 Stewart s doctor and the employer s doctors disagreed regarding causation of Stewart s back problems. Stewart contends that Dr. Bernard is biased such that his opinions should have been discounted by the Administrative Law Judge and the BRB. The BRB concluded that it did not need to address the issue of Dr. Bernard s alleged partiality: Because [the treating physician] did not relate claimant s continuing back problems to his work injury, claimant has not met his burden of establishing that his back condition is work-related. Therefore it is not necessary to address claimant s allegations with respect to Dr. Bernard s alleged partiality. A.S. v. Tigress Envtl. & Dockside Servs., BRB No. 12-0425, 2013 WL 2472385, at *3 (DoL Ben. Rev. Bd. May 29, 2013). Stewart has wholly failed to address the basis for the BRB s ruling and, thus, has abandoned the only relevant issue before this court. See United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006) ( Inadequately briefed issues are deemed abandoned. ). PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.
