
    HOLCIM (US), INC., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.
    No. 05-60836
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 17, 2006.
    Thomas J. Wagner, Thomas Arnoult Rayer, Jr., New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.
    Thomas O. Shepherd, Jr., Clerk, Mark Ambrose Reinhalter, Donald Shire, Richard Anthony Seid, Washington, DC, David Duhon, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Holcim (US), Inc. (“Holcim”) argues that the Benefits Review Board (“Board”) erroneously denied its motion for a stay of an award pending appeal. Holcim contends that, because it does not have a legal remedy to recoup benefits paid in the event the award is later overturned on appeal, see Lennon v. Waterfront Transp., 20 F.3d 658, 661-62 (5th Cir.1994), it will suffer irreparable injury. Holcim’s contention is foreclosed by Rivere v. Offshore Painting Contractors, 872 F.2d 1187 (5th Cir.1989). “Irreparable injury is demonstrated only when the compensation award may be too heavy for the employer [or insurer] to pay without practically taking all his property or rendering him incapable of carrying on his business, or ... by reason of age, sickness, or other circumstances [of the payer], a condition is created which would amount to irreparable injury.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “[t]hat payment of compensation might pose a problem, or even cause serious difficulty is not enough to support a stay. Neither is the fact that the amount paid might be lost if the award is reversed on appeal.” Id.

Realizing that under the current case-law, it cannot prevail, Holcim asks this court to overturn Rivere, or alternatively to overturn our precedent and allow recoupment of benefits in the event the award is later overturned on appeal. We find no merit in Holcim’s requests; accordingly, the decision of the Board denying a stay pending appeal is AFFIRMED. 
      
      Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     