Crawford v. US Dept. of Labor

USCA1 Opinion










[Not for Publication]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