Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jesse COOLEY, Jr., Petitioner v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor; Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated - Pascagoula Operations, Respondents
Jesse Cooley Jr. filed a claim against Huntington Ingalls Incorporated under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. Cooley alleged that he contracted a permanently disabling lung disease due to prolonged exposure to asbestos while working for Huntington. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied Cooley’s claim after considering conflicting medical opinions of whether Cooley actually suffered from asbestosis or an asbestos-related lung condition. The Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) affirmed the ALJ’s denial of Cooley’s claim. Cooley petitioned to this court for review of the decision.
“[O]nce the BRB affirms an order of the ALJ, we need only inquire whether the BRB ‘correctly concluded that the ALJ’s order was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and is in accordance with the law.’ ” Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Dir., OWCP, 614 F.3d 179, 185 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Dir., OWCP, 991 F.2d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1993) ). Cooley argues that the ALJ lacked sufficient evidence to deny his claim and should have relied on the evidence that he does suffer from asbestosis. Construing Cooley’s pro se brief liberally, he nonetheless fails to demonstrate that the ALJ erroneously relied on the opposing medical opinions. The BRB therefore did not err when it concluded that the ALJ’s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.
We DENY the petition for review. Cooley’s motion for appointment of counsel is also DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-60020
Decided: August 03, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)