Click for PDF Version



BRB No. 04-0266


BRUCE H. BAILEY

		Claimant-Petitioner

	v.

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING
AND DRY DOCK COMPANY

		Self-Insured
		Employer-Respondent


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)








DATE ISSUED: Oct. 29, 2004



ORDER on RECONSIDERATION


Claimant, who is not represented by counsel, has filed a timely a motion for reconsideration of the Board’s decision in Bailey v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., BRB No. 04-266 (Aug. 11, 2004). 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(5); 20 C.F.R. §802.407. After consideration of claimant’s contentions, no member of the panel has voted to vacate or modify the Board’s decision. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 1 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(5); 20 C.F.R. §§801.301(b), (c), 802.409.

_______________________________

NANCY S. DOLDER, Chief

Administrative Appeals Judge

_______________________________

REGINA C. McGRANERY

Administrative Appeals Judge

_______________________________

BETTY JEAN HALL

Administrative Appeals Judge

ENDNOTES

1. If claimant is asserting his employment was terminated due to the filing of his longshore claims, his remedy lies under Section 49 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §948a. Further, the terms of the settlement provide that “future medicals are to remain open for 5 years.” Settlement Appl. at 2. To the extent claimant believes employer has violated this provision, his recourse is to file a claim with the district director, as active supervision of an injured employee’s medical care is to be performed by the district director. 33 U.S.C. §907; see generally Sanders v. Marine Terminals Corp., 31 BRBS 19 (1997) (Brown, J., concurring); 20 C.F.R. §§702.407, 702.412. As these issues are not properly before us, we shall not address them.



NOTE: This is a LHCA Unpublished Document


To Top of Document  | Return to LHCA Unpublished October 2004 Decisions Index