UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND
DRY DOCK COMPANY,
Petitioner,

v.
                                                                   No. 96-2469
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;
RANALD ARNTZ,
Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board.
(94-2839)

Argued: June 5, 1997

Decided: August 15, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Reversed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Lawrence Philip Postol, SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIR-
WEATHER & GERALDSON, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Kevin William Grierson, JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY,
P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Respondents. ON BRIEF: Richard
B. Donaldson, Jr., JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, P.C.,
Newport News, Virginia, for Respondent Arntz.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company appeals an
order of the Benefits Review Board affirming without opinion a deci-
sion and order of an administrative law judge (ALJ) awarding benefits
to Ranald Arntz under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compen-
sation Act. After reviewing extensive and uncontradicted medical evi-
dence indicating no physical cause for Arntz's complaints of pain in
his neck and head, the ALJ nevertheless awarded disability benefits.
The ALJ based the award upon the testimony of a single physician
whose conclusory opinion that Arntz was disabled contradicted the
results of numerous diagnostic tests.

After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, and having had
the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the award of benefits
is not supported by substantial evidence. See See v. Washington
Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). Accord-
ingly, we reverse the award of benefits.

REVERSED

                    2
