Newport News Shipbld v. Arntz

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. No. 96-2469 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; RANALD ARNTZ, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (94-2839) Argued: June 5, 1997 Decided: August 15, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Reversed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Lawrence Philip Postol, SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIR- WEATHER & GERALDSON, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Kevin William Grierson, JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Respondents. ON BRIEF: Richard B. Donaldson, Jr., JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Respondent Arntz. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company appeals an order of the Benefits Review Board affirming without opinion a deci- sion and order of an administrative law judge (ALJ) awarding benefits to Ranald Arntz under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compen- sation Act. After reviewing extensive and uncontradicted medical evi- dence indicating no physical cause for Arntz's complaints of pain in his neck and head, the ALJ nevertheless awarded disability benefits. The ALJ based the award upon the testimony of a single physician whose conclusory opinion that Arntz was disabled contradicted the results of numerous diagnostic tests. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the award of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. See See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). Accord- ingly, we reverse the award of benefits. REVERSED 2