Sea-Land Services v. Hobdy

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                                  No. 96-60756
                                Summary Calendar


                            SEA-LAND SERVICES, INC.,

                                                                 Petitioner,


                                      VERSUS


           W.B.   HOBDY;   DIRECTOR,    OFFICE   OF   WORKER’S
           COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

                                                                Respondents.




                  Appeal from the Benefits Review Board,
                     United States Department of Labor
                                     (95-1577)
                                 July 15, 1997


Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

         Sea-Land Services, Inc. petitions this court for review of an

order by the Benefits Review Board of the United States Department

of       Labor,   arguing     that    the      administrative   law   judge’s

determination, under 33 U.S.C. § 910, of an average weekly wage for


     *
   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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
purposes of compensating respondent W.B. Hobdy for a temporary

total disability and a permanent total disability was not supported

by substantial evidence.

     As a § 910 determination is a fact-intensive determination, we

review such    a   decision   for   its    adherence     to   the    substantial

evidence standard and its accordance with the law.               Empire United

Stevedores    v.   Gatlin,    936   F.2d    819,   822    (5th      Cir.   1991).

Substantial evidence is evidence that “a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Ingalls Shipbuilding,

Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 991

F.2d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1993).       In our review, we typically defer

to the decision-maker’s credibility choices among witnesses and

evidence, Id., and construe any doubts in favor of the employee in

accordance with the statute’s remedial purpose, Empire United

Stevedores, 936 F.2d at 822.

     As stated above, all that we require in order to affirm is

that the wage determination be supported by substantial evidence.

Finding such to be the case and employing our customary deference

to the fact-finder, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Benefits

Review Board’s order.