From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wade v. Neuman

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 14, 1966
356 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1966)

Opinion

No. 21901.

February 14, 1966.

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

N.B. Barkley, Jr., Charles Kohlmeyer, Jr., New Orleans, La., for T. Smith Son, Inc., Lemle Kelleher, New Orleans, La., of counsel.

Gene S. Palmisano, Asst. U.S. Atty., Louis C. LaCour, U.S. Atty., for appellee Neuman; Charles Donahue, Sol. of Labor, Alfred H. Myers, George M. Lilly, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Labor, of counsel.

Before GEWIN and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and McRAE, District Judge.


The appellant Wade is dissatisfied with a compensation order entered by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., and contends that he is entitled to additional compensation benefits and medical expenses. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment sustaining the Commissioner.

The opinion of the District Court reflects a careful analysis of the record and the application of the proper legal standards in its review of the findings and conclusions entered by the Deputy Commissioner. We agree with the District Court that the record presents sharp conflicts in the evidence requiring credibility resolutions. There is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commissioner. O'Keeffe v. Smith Associates, 380 U.S. 359, 85 S.Ct. 1012, 13 L.Ed.2d 895 (1965); Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Donovan, (5 Cir. 1962) 300 F.2d 741.

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Wade v. Neuman

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 14, 1966
356 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1966)
Case details for

Wade v. Neuman

Case Details

Full title:Fletcher WADE, Appellant, v. Raymond E. NEUMAN, Deputy Commissioner…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Feb 14, 1966

Citations

356 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1966)

Citing Cases

Nardella v. Campbell Machine, Inc.

Here, the record demonstrates that petitioner failed to comply with specified requirements. See Wade v.…