From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Donovan

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Nov 2, 1966
367 F.2d 825 (5th Cir. 1966)

Opinion

No. 22224.

November 2, 1966.

Frank S. Bruno, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Edward P. Jerry, Frederick W. Veters, Asst. U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Louis C. LaCour, U.S. Atty., for appellee Donovan. Charles Donahue, Sol. of Labor, Alfred H. Myers, George M. Lilly, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Labor, of counsel.

Merrit Jerry, New Orleans, La., for appellees, Florio and American Mutual Liability Ins. Co.

Before JONES and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge.


Although counsel for the appellant strongly urges that this is something more than a review of an award by the Deputy Commissioner in a long-shoreman's compensation case by the test of whether the award is supported by the record considered as a whole, it is our conclusion that such is the test which must be applied. The district court had the matter before it on a petition for review. It is the view of this Court that the facts as recited by the district court are correctly stated in its decision and that the principles which it has announced are sound. Williams v. Donovan, D.C.E.D.La. 1964, 234 F. Supp. 135. It follows that, applying those principles, the award of the Commissioner and the judgment of the district court should be and are

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Williams v. Donovan

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Nov 2, 1966
367 F.2d 825 (5th Cir. 1966)
Case details for

Williams v. Donovan

Case Details

Full title:Charles WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. P.J. DONOVAN, Deputy Commissioner…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Nov 2, 1966

Citations

367 F.2d 825 (5th Cir. 1966)

Citing Cases

Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, OWCP

During the first half century of administration of the LHWCA, federal tribunals consistently construed the…

Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

The Fifth Circuit did not discuss the exclusivity issue in its brief opinion affirming. 234 F.Supp. 135…