UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

AUDREY D. HARRIS,
Petitioner,

v.

C.F.S. Air Cargo; HARTFORD FIRE;
                                                                  No. 96-2684
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board.
(No. 95-751)

Submitted: November 18, 1997

Decided: February 6, 1998

Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Audrey D. Harris, Petitioner Pro Se. Gerard E. W. Voyer, TAYLOR
& WALKER, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Audrey D. Harris, a longshoreman, injured her back,
shoulder, and neck at work. An Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")
denied benefits, and Petitioner appealed to the Benefits Review Board
(the "Board"). Because the Board failed to resolve the appeal (which
had been pending for over one year) before September 12, 1996, the
ALJ's decision was considered affirmed by the Board on that date for
purposes of obtaining judicial review. See Omnibus Appropriations
Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 101(d), 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26,
1996). In her timely petition, Petitioner argues that substantial evi-
dence does not support the ALJ's determination that she did not suffer
a disability due to her injury and thus was not entitled to disability
benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision,
we affirm.

The record discloses that Petitioner's treating doctors found no
objective evidence to verify Petitioner's contentions of prolonged
physical injury resulting from her work accident. Furthermore, two
doctors determined that Petitioner was capable of resuming her nor-
mal work activities shortly after her accident. Therefore, we find sub-
stantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion that Petitioner did not
suffer a disability. The record further discloses that a doctor who
treated Petitioner for over a year following her accident ascertained
no causal connection between Petitioner's work accident and her car-
pal tunnel syndrome. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ's determination that Petitioner was not entitled to
compensation for medical expenses incurred to treat her carpal tunnel
syndrome.

We therefore affirm the ALJ's order and summary affirmance of
the Board denying Petitioner relief under the Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-950 (West 1986 &

                    2
Supp. 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
