You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Wells v. Bae Systems Norfolk Ship Repair

Citation: 331 F. App'x 222Docket: No. 08-2315

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; August 14, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Petition for review by Carolyn Wells is denied by an unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. The decision affirming the administrative law judge’s order on modification remand, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901-950), is based on substantial evidence and complies with the law, as established in relevant case law (Consolidation Coal Co. v. Held and Lane v. Union Carbide Corp.). Although Wells is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, her petition for review is ultimately denied. The court finds that oral argument is unnecessary as the issues are sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Petition for Review

Application: The court denies Carolyn Wells's petition for review following the administrative law judge's order on modification remand under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.

Reasoning: Petition for review by Carolyn Wells is denied by an unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

In Forma Pauperis Status

Application: Carolyn Wells is allowed to proceed without the prepayment of court fees, yet her petition for review is denied.

Reasoning: Although Wells is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, her petition for review is ultimately denied.

Necessity of Oral Argument

Application: The court determines that oral argument is unnecessary due to the adequacy of the materials submitted in addressing the issues.

Reasoning: The court finds that oral argument is unnecessary as the issues are sufficiently addressed in the submitted materials.

Substantial Evidence Standard

Application: The court affirms the decision based on the substantial evidence standard, finding that the administrative law judge's order complies with established law.

Reasoning: The decision affirming the administrative law judge’s order on modification remand, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901-950), is based on substantial evidence and complies with the law, as established in relevant case law (Consolidation Coal Co. v. Held and Lane v. Union Carbide Corp.).