
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                                [Not for Publication]                            United States Court of Appeals                                For the First Circuit                                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
