Crawford v. US Dept. of Labor ( 1997 )

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                                [Not for Publication]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