Crawford v. US Dept. of Labor

                    [Not for Publication]

                United States Court of Appeals
                    For the First Circuit
                                         

No. 96-2054

                     FRANCES L. CRAWFORD,

                         Petitioner,

                              v.

              UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
               AND BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION,

                         Respondent.

                                         

               PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
      OF THE BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                                         

                            Before

                     Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                                                     
                Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                                        
                  and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                                      

                                         

Gary Gabree  with whom Stinson, Lupton,  Weiss &  Gabree, P.A. was
                                                                          
on brief for petitioner.
Stephen  Hessert with whom  Norman, Hanson  & DeTroy  was on brief
                                                                
for respondent.

                                         

                       January 27, 1997
                                         


          Per Curiam.   Petitioner Frances L. Crawford  seeks
                      Per Curiam
                                

review  of a final order  of the Benefits  Review Board ("the

Board") affirming  a decision of an  administrative law judge

("ALJ") that  denied her claim for  disability benefits under

the Longshore and Harbor Workers'  Act ("the Act"), 33 U.S.C.

   901 et seq.   The ALJ's decision was affirmed as  a matter
                          

of  law when  the Board did  not act  on the  appeal within a

year.1   Thus, the  Board left  undisturbed the  ALJ's ruling

that Crawford  was not  entitled to  benefits  under the  Act

because she fell within the occupational status exclusion set

forth   in  33   U.S.C.    902(3)(A)  (excluding   from  term

"employee"  "individuals  employed  exclusively   to  perform

office  clerical, secretarial,  security, or  data processing

work").

          "[T]he  ALJ's  findings of  fact are  conclusive if

supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as

a  whole."   Levins  v. Benefits  Review  Bd., U.S.  Dep't of
                                                                         

Labor,  724 F.2d  4, 6  (1st  Cir. 1984).   We  may, however,
                 

review  the Board's order for errors of  law.  See id.  Here,
                                                                  

the  ALJ  supportably found  that,  as  a "computer  operator

clerk,"  Crawford  spent  most of  her  time  in  front of  a

computer terminal  and the rest filing  and carrying magnetic

tapes to and from the computer room.  Her subsequent position

                    
                                

1.  See Omnibus Appropriations for  Fiscal Year 1996, Pub. L.
                   
No. 104-134 (enacted April 26, 1996).

                             -2-
                                          2


as  a  "technical  clerk"  required  her to  file,  roll  and

catalogue  blueprints,  take  blueprints  to  a  reproduction

office   and   to  the   mailroom   of   the  Supervisor   of

Shipbuilding's  office,  and to  read  blueprint measurements

over  the telephone to engineers  when they did  not have the

blueprints  with them.   Such  duties indicate  that Crawford

plainly falls within the  "clerical employee" exclusion found

in 33 U.S.C.   902(3)(A).

          Affirmed.
                      Affirmed.
                               

                             -3-
                                          3