John Thomas v. General Ship Repair Corp, No. 14-1097 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1097 JOHN C. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. GENERAL SHIP REPAIR CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board (BRB-1: 13-0286). Submitted: October 31, 2014 Decided: November 7, 2014 Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Neil R. Lebowitz, LAW OFFICE OF NEIL R. LEBOWITZ, LLC, Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner. Eric Hemmendinger, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Sarah Marie Hurley, Mark A. Reinhalter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John C. Thomas seeks review of the decision and order of the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) dismissing discrimination claim under 33 U.S.C. § 948a (2012). his We deny the petition for review. “We review the BRB’s decision to assess whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings of the ALJ and whether the legal conclusions of the BRB rational and consistent with applicable law.” and ALJ are Sidwell v. Va. Int’l Terminals, Inc., 372 F.3d 238, 241 (4th Cir. 2004). The BRB’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, with no deference to the BRB’s interpretation of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation review of Act the ascertaining reasonable (“LHWCA”) ALJ’s factual whether mind conclusions.” the might Id. provisions. We credibility assessments.” findings ALJ relied accept as defer to Id. is . on . . ALJ’s to “our limited evidence adequate the However, that to a support its “inferences and Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Tann, 841 F.2d 540, 543 (4th Cir. 1988); see Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir. 1984) (deferring to ALJ because “he had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and to determine the credibility of the claimant”). 2 Our decision is review based of upon the record discloses substantial evidence that and the is BRB’s without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We oral dispense contentions with are argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION 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.
