Legal Opinion
Pedroza v. BRB
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 1, 2009No. 05-75449PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COLLINS, District Judge:
Jose Pedroza (“Pedroza”), an employee of National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (“National Steel”), petitions this court to review the determination of the Benefits Review Board (“BRB or Board”) that claimant Pedroza is not entitled to benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act (“Longshore Act or LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et. seq., because his psychological injuries were caused by National Steel’s legitimate, adverse personnel decisions. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of the BRB. 33 U.S.C. § 921(c).
Both parties agree that…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. CaputoSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. CraftSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation ProgramsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Nogueira v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- U. S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation ProgramsSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Valladolid v. Pacific Operations Offshore, LLPCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Pedroza v. BRBCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Pedroza v. BRBCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010