Steven Young v. DOWCP

── Steven Young v. DOWCP ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 24-1299 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/08/2026 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1299 STEVEN T. YOUNG, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (22-0458) Submitted: April 28, 2026 Decided: June 8, 2026 Before WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Matthew H. Kraft, MATTHEW H. KRAFT, P.L.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Petitioner. Christopher R. Hedrick, MASON, MASON, WALKER & HEDRICK, PC, Newport News, Virginia, for Respondent Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1299 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/08/2026 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Steven T. Young petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s (BRB) decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of his request to modify his permanent partial disability benefits award under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“the Act”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950. Young sought to convert his award to one for permanent total disability benefits based on new physical restrictions imposed by one of his physicians. In this petition for review, Young challenges the ALJ’s finding that Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company (“Employer”) met its burden of establish suitable alternative employment for Young in the Hampton Roads, Virginia, area. We deny the petition, as amended. “We review BRB decisions for errors of law and to ascertain whether the [BRB] adhered to its statutorily mandated standard for reviewing the ALJ’s factual findings.” Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Green, 656 F.3d 235, 239 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will affirm the factual findings of the ALJ “if supported by substantial evidence,” but “[r]eview of legal questions is de novo.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[S]ubstantial evidence . . . mean[s] such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It requires more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.” Id. (citation modified). We may not disregard the ALJ’s findings “on the basis that other inferences might have been more reasonable.” Id. at 240 (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, “[d]eference must be given to the [ALJ’s] inferences and credibility assessments, and we have emphasized the scope of review of ALJ findings is limited.” Id. (internal quotation 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1299 Doc: 38 Filed: 06/08/2026 Pg: 3 of 5 marks omitted). Nevertheless, “[t]he ALJ may not merely credulously accept the assertions of the parties or their representatives, but must examine the logic of their conclusions and evaluate the evidence upon which their conclusions are based.” Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 138 F.3d 134, 140 (4th Cir. 1998). “The Act provides compensation to longshore workers who have experienced on- the-job injuries for the econom