
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-2178                                     MARIE EVANS,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                             BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION,                                     Respondent.                                 ____________________                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER                            OF THE BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD                                  ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,                                   ____________________                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                 ____________________            James W. Case and McTeague, Higbee,  MacAdam, Case, Watson & Cohen            _____________     ________________________________________________        on brief for petitioner.            Michelle Jodoin  LaFond and Norman, Hanson  & DeTroy  on brief for            _______________________     ________________________        respondent.                                 ____________________                                  February 27, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Upon careful review  of the administrative                 __________            record  and  the  parties'   briefs,  we  conclude  that  the            Administrative Law Judge's findings should not be overturned.            Those findings, contrary to claimant's assertion of permanent            work-related  elbow  and  respiratory  impairments,  must  be            accepted because  they are supported by  substantial evidence            in  the record considered  as a whole.   See Bath  Iron Works                                                     ___ ________________            Corp. v. White, 584 F.2d 569, 573 (1st Cir. 1978).            _____    _____                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
