UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60426
Summary Calender
CERES MARINE TERMINALS,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
DAVID HINTON; DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board
March 9, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner, Ceres Marine Terminals (the “Employer”) petitions
for review of attorney fees awarded by the Benefits Review Board to
claimant David Hinton. We enforce the order.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
1
This proceeding arises from a claim filed under the provisions
of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended,
33 U.S.C. § 901. The Benefits Review Board affirmed an award of
compensation, which is the subject of a separate appeal (Cause No.
00-60171). On February 22, 2000, Claimant’s counsel filed a motion
for award of attorney fees pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 802.203.
Counsel requested a fee of $6,662.50 for 20.50 hours of legal
services at an hourly rate of $325.00. The Benefits Review Board
(the “Board”) reduced the hourly rate to $200.00 and found the
request reasonable in all other respects. On March 30, 2000, the
Board awarded attorney’s fees of $4,100 to Hinton.
The Employer filed a motion for reconsideration, stating that
it was not served with the fee petition, and objected to the hourly
rate awarded and to some of the services claimed. The Board noted
the Employer’s objections, but found the fee reasonable and denied
the motion for reconsideration.
We review the decision of the Board for errors of law and to
assure there is substantial evidence in the record to support the
decision. 33 U.S.C. § 921.
The Employer contends that the Board erred in failing to
adequately set out its reasons for overruling the objections. The
Employer also contends that the time records were inaccurate
because all notations were in half or full hour increments, rather
the one/eighth hour increments. Finally, the Employer complains
that some of the time claimed was unnecessary.
2
Having reviewed the record in this matter, we find no error of
fact or law in the Board’s order.
The attorney fees order is enforced.
ENFORCED.
3