Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-93-01476/USCOURTS-caDC-93-01476-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert L. Burns
Petitioner
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 14, 1994 Decided December 20, 1994

No. 93-1476

ROBERT L. BURNS,

PETITIONER

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'

COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

RESPONDENT

No. 93-1626

GEORGE HYMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

PETITIONER

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'

COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

RESPONDENT

Petition for Review of Orders

of the Benefits Review Board

Marc Fiedler argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner Robert L. Burns.

Samuel K. Charnoff argued the cause for respondent/employer George Hyman Construction

Company. Stewart S. Manela was on the brieffor respondent/employer George HymanConstruction

Company.

Carol A. DeDeo, Associate Solicitor, United States Department ofLabor, entered an appearance for

respondent Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

Before WALD, SILBERMAN and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALD.

Concurring Opinion filed by Circuit Judge SILBERMAN.

WALD, Circuit Judge: Petitioner Robert L. Burns seeks review of three orders of the Benefits

Review Board ("BRB" or "Board"). Burns contends that the Board exceeded its statutorily defined

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 1 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1

In cold weather, construction companies commonly enclose sites where concrete has been

poured and heat them with propane heaters, so that the concrete will cure rather than freeze. 

Naturally occurring propane is odorless, but propane used for heating has a strong "rotten egg"

smell as a result of an odorant added for safety reasons. 

2

"Stroke" is a general term used to describe many kinds of trauma to the brain. Generally,

however, the term denotes damage to the brain resulting from an inadequate supply of oxygen. 

3

"Plaque," in this context, consists of dead tissue, cholesterol, pieces of calcium, clotted blood,

and other debris. 

scope of review in reversing the first two Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") rulings. We agree that

the Board overstepped its authority, and find that the original ALJ award of benefits was supported

by substantial evidence. We therefore grant Burns's petition for review, and reinstate the ALJ's

original compensation order.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Facts

In 1980, Burns was 68 years old, and employed by the Hyman Construction Company. He

worked as a reinforcing rodman, positioning the steelrodsthat reinforce concrete floors and columns

in office buildings and other structures. While working on the exposed top floor of a building one

cold February morning, Burns ran out of materials and descended one level in search of more. He

found what he needed in an area enclosed in plastic sheeting and heated by propane gas.1

When Burns entered the enclosed area, he became disoriented, and "had to get out." Burns

believes that this was because the area was inundated with propane. After leaving the enclosure,

Burns returned upstairs to rejoin the other workers. Minutes thereafter he experienced numbness in

his left hand and arm, and difficulty in speaking. His co-workers summoned an ambulance to

transport him to the George Washington University Hospital.

There Burns was diagnosed as having experienced a minor stroke.2 An arteriogram revealed

that he suffered approximately 90% "stenosis," or narrowing, of his right carotid artery, a major

artery supplying blood to the brain. The stenosis resulted from the accretion of plaque3on the walls

of Burns's artery, a process that occurs over a number of years. His doctors feared that a large clot

might at any time break offthe plaque and circulate to Burns's brain, causing a far more severe stroke.

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 2 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

4The DCWCA of 1928 provided:

[C]hapter 18 of title 33, U.S. Code, including all amendments that may hereafter

be made thereto, shall apply in respect to the injury or death of an employee of an

employer carrying on any employment in the District of Columbia ...; except that

... the term "employer" shall be held to mean every person carrying on any

employment in the District of Columbia, and the term "employee" shall be held to

mean every employee of any such person.

D.C. Code § 36-501 (1973).

Effective July 24, 1982, the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act of 1979

("DCWCA of 1979"), D.C. Code §§ 36-301 to 36-345 (1993), superseded the LHWCA, as

extended by the DCWCA of 1928. Because Burns's claim was filed before the effective date of

the DCWCA of 1979, however, it is governed by the LHWCA. 

Burns underwent emergency surgery to excise the plaque. Afterward, he was hospitalized for nearly

a month and endured a lengthy period of rehabilitation.

Burns asserted fromthe outset that exposure to propane gas on the job precipitated hisstroke.

Accordingly, in September 1981 he consulted with counsel asto hisremedies. His attorney requested

opinionsfrom the physicians who cared for Burns following his stroke. One of these physicians, Dr.

Teychenne, opined by letter that it was "quite possible" that Burns's exposure to propane gas "could

have hastened the onset of the stroke." In November 1981, Burns filed a worker's compensation

claim against Hyman under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act

("LHWCA"), 33 U.S.C. § 901-50 (1988), extended by District of Columbia Workman's

Compensation Act of 1928 ("DCWCA of 1928"). D.C. Code §§ 36-501 to 36-503 (1973) (repealed

1982).4

B. Procedural History

Because irregularities in the administrative process play a central role in our review of this

case, a detailed description of the various ALJ and BRB proceedings is necessary.

1. Round 1

In hearings held in December 1982 and January 1983, ALJ Phillip Lesser heard testimony

from Burns, several of Burns's co-workers, two medical experts, and an industrial hygienist. The

principal question before the ALJ was that of causation. Although it was undisputed that Burns's

preexisting stenosis played a role in his stroke, "it is well settled that [under the LHWCA] an

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 3 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

5Counsel for Hyman objected to Burns's report of the attendants' observation as hearsay, and

the ALJ said he would disregard the "they said" part of Burns's statement. Burns made a similar

statement on cross-examination, and Hyman's counsel again moved to strike Burns's report of

what the attendants said as hearsay. This time, the ALJ overruled the motion. Id.

employer is liable for the consequences of a work-related condition which aggravates a preexisting

condition." Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Brandt Airflex Corp., 645 F.2d

1053, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Burns contendsthat breathing propane on the job precipitated his stroke. He testified before

the ALJ that when he stepped into the heated enclosure, "[t]he gas hit [him]"; he became

"disoriented" and "had to get out." He reported that while the ambulance attendants were escorting

him downstairs, they remarked on an "awful odor of propane."5 He introduced into evidence the

attendants' logbook, which recorded that Burns had been "breathing propane gas."

George Hindle, the former president of Burns's union and himself a rodman for twenty-one

years, testified that he had visited the site "[w]here Mr. Burns was working" on the day of hisstroke,

and noted a "particularly strong odor" of propane gas. Hindle explained that the odor got stronger

"the closer you g[o]t to the tank[s]." On the other hand, James Owens, Burns's foreman at the time

of his stroke, testified that the area Burns had entered was not entirely air-tight; gaps in the plastic

sheeting, as well as stairway and elevator shaft openings imperfectly sealed with plywood, provided

a measure of ventilation.

The medical experts propounded two quite distinct theories of the origins of Burns's stroke.

Hyman's expert, Dr. John Keshishian, suggested that a small piece ("embolus") might have broken

off the pre-existing plaque partially blocking Burns's carotid artery. Keshishian theorized that such

an embolus had travelled into one of the small blood vessels in Burns's brain, there obstructing the

flow of vital oxygen-carrying red blood cells.

Dr. Richard Schwartz, Burns's expert, posited a different cause. He testified that propane is

an "evacuant," a substance that displaces oxygen in the blood. He explained that the narrowing of

Burns's carotid artery had greatly "reduc[ed] the amount of oxygen" flowing to Burns's brain and left

him particularly "sensitive to any change in the oxygen" level in his blood. Schwartz opined that

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 4 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

6Schwartz also mentioned that propane could have an "anesthetic" effect on humans. This

remark has been a source of considerable confusion throughout Burns's case. In particular,

Hyman and the BRB have consistently treated "hypoxia" and "anesthesia" as synonyms, when in

fact they are very different concepts.

"Hypoxia" is a general term for a lack of oxygenin the air, the blood, a tissue, the lungs,

or anywhere in the body. See 2 J.E. SCHMIDT, ATTORNEY'S DICTIONARY OF MEDICINE AND

WORD FINDER H-173 (1990) ("SCHMIDT"). Dr. Schwartz testified that Burns's stroke resulted

from such a lack of oxygen in his brain.

"Anesthesia," on the other hand, denotes a condition in which an individual experiences no

feeling in the body as a whole (general anesthesia, which also involves loss of consciousness) or a

part of the body (local anesthesia). See 1 SCHMIDT at A-206. Anesthesia is most commonly

induced as a preliminary to surgical procedures by means of substances known as anesthetics, but

may also result from disease or injury. Propane (C 3H 8), like many other carbon/hydrogen

compounds, can have a general anesthetic effect when inhaled in sufficient quantity. The precise

mechanism by which general anesthetics suppress responses to sensory stimuli is ill understood,

but they are thought to act directly on the central nervous system, including the brain, the spinal

cord, and the peripheral nerves. General anesthesia does not involve depriving a patient of

oxygen, and indeed, when anesthetics are administered as gases the breathing circuit is carefully

monitored to ensure that oxygen delivery does not fall below 21% (the level of oxygen in the

earth's atmosphere generally). See generally 3 ROSCOE N. GRAY, ATTORNEY'S TEXTBOOK OF

MEDICINE § 58.00-58.19 (3d ed. 1990). 

inhaling propane "would have [had] a deleterious effect" on Burns, "as opposed to the ordinary

individual who has normal carotid arteries and could quite likely tolerate a reduction in oxygen [ ]

carrying capacity without any problems." Schwartz concluded that the most likely explanation for

Burns'sstroke wasthat breathing propane had displaced some oxygen from his blood, and combined

with the substantial blockage of Burns's carotid artery to produce a temporary "hypoxia," or lack of

oxygen, in his brain.6

Schwartz found Keshishian'stheoryimplausible because a cerebralembolism"develops... like

a bolt out of the blue," with no warning signs. The development of Burns's stroke, which involved

an initial "disorientation," then numbness in his arm and face, and finally partial paralysis of his left

arm and leg after he walked off the job site, was inconsistent with Keshishian's "embolism" theory.

Schwartz also cited a recent study that found emboli to be an infrequent cause ofstrokes, accounting

for only about 8% to 10% of incidents in the study group. The same study indicated, moreover, that

in 100% of strokes that were triggered by emboli, the offending material broke off in the heart, not

from the wall of an artery, as Keshishian hypothesized happened in Burns's case.

Conversely, Keshishian took issue with Schwartz's theory of what caused the stroke.

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 5 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

7

Judge Lesser interjected that perhaps "no one else got sick" because "no one else ... [on the

job site] had a plaque as large as [Burns's]" blocking his or her carotid artery. Keshishian

appeared to agree that this fact might have explanatory power. 

Although he conceded that Burns could have been "starved" for oxygen if enough propane entered

his blood stream, Keshishian doubted whether propane in a quantity sufficient to induce such a

condition could be found on a job site. Keshishian opined that had enough propane been present to

so affect Burns, the "whole damn place would blow up and if no one else got sick, it's pretty hard for

me to accept such a situation."7

Finally, Hyman called NealJurinski, an industrial hygienist, to testify concerning a test he had

performed to measure the level of propane at a construction site "similar" to that at which Burns's

stroke occurred. Judge Lesser rejected the proffer as irrelevant, but permitted Jurinski to testify

regarding the "chemistry of propane" and its "effect on the human body." Jurinski testified that the

air an individual inhales must be 89% propane to have an "anesthetic" effect. He further testified that

propane is explosive when mixed with air in quantities between 2.2% and 9.9%, but that in air

containing above 9.9% propane "there is too much fuel present for the amount of available oxygen

... and so an explosion could not be propagated."

Judge Lesser indicated that he was "persuaded" by Schwartz's "hypoxia" theory of causation,

rejected Keshishian's theory for essentially the reasons given by Schwartz, and awarded Burns

benefits. In re Burns, Case No. 82-DCWC-708, OWCP No. 40-146508 (Nov. 30, 1984) ("ALJ I"),

at 10-13. Hyman appealed to the BRB. The Board held that Judge Lesser had erred by failing to

make "specific findings based on the conflicting evidence" regarding the quantity of propane gas in

the enclosure Burns entered, because "the causation issue in this case [ ] turns on the existence of

harmful amounts of propane gas at the worksite at the time of injury." Burns v. The George Hyman

Construction Co., BRB No. 84-2754 (May 30, 1986) ("BRB I"), at 4. Specifically, the BRB

instructed, Judge Lesser should have "consider[ed Jurinski's] ... testimony regarding the percentage

of propane necessary in the atmosphere before the gas will have an anesthetic effect." Id. at 5. The

Board remanded to Judge Lesser for reconsideration.

2. Round 2

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 6 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In his second opinion, Judge Lesser made a finding regarding the level of propane in the

enclosure. He alluded to the BRB's own statement that:

employer's[ ] witnessestestified that the area into which claimant walked prior to his

stroke contained propane heaters.... George Hindle, president of claimant's union,

also testified to the smell of propane on the job site on the date of claimant's stroke.

Further, the ambulance attendants who transported claimant to the hospitalremarked

about the smell of the propane gas.

He concluded: "I infer from all of the uncontradicted testimony that there was a heavy concentration

of propane gas in the enclosure through which the Claimant walked." In re Burns, Case No. 82-

DCWC-708, OWCP No. 40-146508 (March 9, 1987) ("ALJ II"), at 3.

Judge Lesser declined, however, to consider Jurinski's testimony regarding the amount of

propane necessary to produce an "anesthetic effect." He explained that because his finding did not

rely on such an effect, the testimonywasirrelevant. Id. Indeed, Judge Lesser emphasized that "there

was no suggestion made by any of the physicians ... that the Claimant was anesthetized as he walked

through the enclosure." Id. He repeated that Schwartz's theory was that the inhalation of propane

gas lowered the amount of available oxygen in Burns's blood, and combined with the blockage in

Burns's artery to produce an insufficient oxygen supply ("hypoxia") in Burns's brain, causing the

stroke. Judge Lesser also reiterated that he found Schwartz's testimony credible, and that Keshishian

had conceded that Schwartz's theory was possible. Id.

On review, the BRB again reversed, criticizing Judge Lesser's decision not to consider the

industrial hygienist'stestimony regarding the amount of propane necessary to produce an "anesthetic

effect." The BRB explained that, in its view, an "anesthetic effect" was the "underlying basis" for

Schwartz's opinion; Judge Lesser had therefore erred by "accept[ing] Dr. Schwartz's theory without

fully understanding it." Burns v. The George Hyman Construction Co., BRB No. 87-708 (May 29,

1987) ("BRB II"), at 4. The BRB also found that Judge Lesser had not complied with its instruction

to make a "specific" finding regarding the level of propane in the enclosure. Id. The Board remanded

for reconsideration of the "evidence relevant to causation in a manner consistent with this opinion."

Id.

3. Round 3

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 7 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

8

Judge Neusner did not make any finding regarding the "concentration of propane gas" that

would be necessary to produce the claimed hypoxia; nor did he make any "specific finding"

regarding the quantity of propane in the enclosure. 

By the time of the BRB's second remandsix years after Burns's claim was filedJudge

Lesser had retired. The BRB assigned the case to a different ALJ, Judge Neusner. Both parties

refused to participate in any further evidentiary hearing, and Judge Neusner granted their motion to

file briefs in lieu of a new hearing.

Judge Neusner's decision, after repeating the positions of Doctors Schwartz and Keshishian,

stated that "Claimant's problemof proof under the mandate on remand isthat the Board does not find

that the record supports[Schwartz's hypoxia theory]." In re Burns, Case No. 82-DCW-708, OWCP

No. 40-146508 (Dec. 4, 1991) ("ALJ III"), at 12. He then wrote: "I agree with the Board that the

record does not demonstrate that there was present at the time and place of exposure a sufficient

concentration of propane gas to [result in the claimed "hypoxia']."8Id.

Judge Neusner, however, interpreted the BRB's direction to consider the evidence on the

"record as a whole" to require him to go beyond the propane concentration question, and determine

whether Burns's stroke was job related in a broader sense. He found that Burns's job was physically

demanding, particularly on the kind of winter day on which the stroke occurred. He then suggested

that Burns's stroke may have been due to a modified version of Dr. Keshishian's "embolus" theory,

whereby "the embolus was caused to break free by the body'sreaction to variousstresses of[Burns's]

normal job related activity." On this ground, Judge Neusner again awarded Burns benefits. Id. at 14.

The BRB affirmed the part ofJudge Neusner's order agreeing with the Board that the record

did not demonstrate a concentration of propane sufficient to induce hypoxia. Burns v. The George

Hyman Construction Co., BRB No. 92-0656 (Jul. 2, 1993) ("BRB III"), at 6. However, it reversed

the ALJ's determination that the stroke could have been causedeven partiallyby Burns's

work-related stresses on the ground that Burns had never advanced that theory. Id. at 3-6. The

Board entered a final order denying benefits, and Burns petitioned this court for review.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction to Review the First Two BRB Orders

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 8 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

9Burns's case is a particularly patent illustration of the problem envisioned by the Mijangos

court. After the second BRB remand, Judge Neusner observed that "[c]laimant's problem of

proof under the mandate on remand is that the Board does not find ... that there was present at

the time and place of exposure a sufficient concentration of propane gas to [result in the claimed

"hypoxia']." ALJ III, at 12. Judge Neusner thus clearly felt constrained by the BRB's exercise of

the fact-finding function to "agree" with the Board on this point. See id.

The LHWCA provides judicial review only for final orders of the BRB. 33 U.S.C. § 921(c)

(1988). At an earlier stage of Burns's case, this court held that the second Board decision remanding

to the ALJ for further findings was not a final order and could not be appealed. Burns v. George

Hyman Construction Co., No. 87-1261 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 27, 1987). A threshold question is therefore

whether this court now has jurisdiction to review all three BRB orders, or only the third ("final")

order.

The Administrative Procedure Act instructs that all three BRB opinions are now properly

before us: "A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling not directly reviewable

is subject to review on the review of the final agency action." 5 U.S.C. § 704 (1988). Indeed, as a

unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit recently explained:

Even if this provision of the Administrative Procedure Act did not apply, logic and

due process would require that this Court be able to review the decision to remand....

If this Court could not now review the decision to remand, the Board would be free

to remand close cases until the ALJ produced an order that comported with the

Board's view of the facts. The Board cannot usurp the fact-finding responsibility of

the ALJ through its limited power of review.

Mijangos v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 948 F.2d 941, 944 (5th Cir. 1991).9

B. The Limited Scope of BRB Review

The LHWCA provision authorizing BRB review of ALJ rulings states, in pertinent part:

The findings of fact in the decision under review by the Board shall be conclusive if

supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.

33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3) (1988). The scope of BRB review is also limited by regulation:

The Benefits Review Board is not empowered to engage in a de novo proceeding or

unrestricted review of a case brought before it.... [The ALJ's] findings of fact and

conclusions of law may be set aside only if they are not ... supported by substantial

evidence ... or in accordance with law.

20 C.F.R. § 802.301(a) (1994). We have often held that within this framework, it is the duty of the

ALJ, not the BRB, to weigh the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom. See, e.g.,

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 9 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

10"Substantial evidence" means more than a "scintilla," but less than a preponderance of the

evidence. Whitmore, 837 F.2d at 515 n.4. 

Whitmore v. Afia Worldwide Ins., 837 F.2d 513, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The BRB has "no authority

to second-guess the findings of the ALJ if those findings are supported by substantial evidence."10

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. JaffeeNewYork Decorating, 25 F.3d 1080,

1084 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The BRB's scope of review under the LHWCA thus differs markedly from

that of other agencies that are permitted to independently determine the facts and need not defer to

the ALJ. See Presley v. Tinsley Maintenance Service, 529 F.2d 433, 436 (5th Cir. 1976).

This court reviews decisions ofthe Board to ensure that it has not exceeded the proper scope

of its review. To determine whether the BRB exceeded its statutory authority, we "conduct an

independent review of the record to determine if the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial

evidence." Licor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 879 F.2d 901, 903 (D.C. Cir.

1989) (quoting Randall v. Comfort Control, Inc., 725 F.2d 791, 796 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). In so doing,

we must keep in mind "the beneficent purposes and humanitarian nature of the Act" and resolve

"doubtful questions, including factual ones ... in favor of the claimants." Id.

C. The BRB Exceeded the Scope of Its Review

The BRB's review of Judge Lesser's rulings went well beyond determining whether his

findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence. Because Judge Lesser's award of

benefits was in fact so supported, the BRB was statutorily required to affirm it, and we need not

reach the question whether the BRB erred in reviewing Judge Neusner's ruling.

1. The BRB Improperly Reinterpreted Dr. Schwartz's Testimony

Dr. Schwartz's testimony formed the basis ofJudge Lesser's original order awarding benefits

to Burns. The ALJ explained that he was "persuaded" by Dr. Schwartz's theory that "Claimant's

inhalation of propane gasin combination with the [blockage] in his carotid artery caused a temporary

hypoxia (low oxygen content) in the blood going to the Claimant's brain which caused his stroke."

ALJ I, at 9-10. On review, the Boardseizing on Schwartz's additional observation that propane

can have an "anesthetic" effect on humansheld that Judge Lesser had erred when he "did not

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 10 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

consider [Jurinski's] ... testimony regarding the percentage of propane necessary in the atmosphere

before the gas will have an anesthetic effect." BRB I, at 5.

On remand, Judge Lesser explained that Jurinski's testimony was "immaterial and irrelevant"

because "[t]here was no suggestion made by ... any of the [ ] witnesses" that Burns had been

"anesthetized." ALJ II, at 3. Judge Lesser repeated that on his understanding of Schwartz's

testimony, Burns's stroke had resulted when his inhalation of propane had reduced the amount of

available oxygen in the limited supply of blood that his substantially blocked carotid artery provided

to his brain. Id.

The secondBRBopinion flatlyrejected JudgeLesser'sinterpretationofSchwartz'stestimony.

It maintained that the "underlying basis" for Dr. Schwartz's testimony was that "the propane had an

anesthetic effect on [Burns]." BRB II, at 4. The Board therefore repeated that "the administrative

law judge'sfailure to consider Dr.Jurinski's opinion asto the percentage of propane necessaryto have

an anesthetic effect was an abuse of discretion." Id.

The BRB's dialogue with Judge Lesser on this point bears little relation to the Board's

statutorydutyto ensure that the ALJ'sfindings and conclusions are supported bysubstantial evidence.

Once Judge Lesser found that Burns's blood-oxygen level had been lowered by breathing propane,

the BRB could not insist, based on its own review of Schwartz's testimony, that the ALJ had to find

that Burns had either been "anesthetized" or left unaffected by the propane. Here, as in Crum v.

General Adjustment Bureau, 738 F.2d 474, 480 (D.C. Cir. 1984):

the Board failed to give [the ALJ's] determination its statutorily required

conclusiveness, and instead redetermined the facts ... by focusing on [selected

portions of the record]. But the BRB was not entitled to review this matter de novo;

rather the Board was bound by the ALJ's determination if supported by substantial

evidence.

Accord Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Loxley, 934 F.2d 511, 514 (4th Cir. 1991)

(overruling the BRB's reversal of the ALJ on the ground that the Board's "independent analysis" of

"evidence presented at the hearing" "erroneously expanded its scope of review"). In Burns's case,

our "independent review ofthe record," Licor, 879 F.2d at 903, indicatesthat Judge Lesser's analysis

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 11 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

11The BRB's view of Schwartz's testimony unduly emphasizes his reference to propane's

anesthetic qualities. Judge Lesser held the evidence concerning an anesthetic effect "irrelevant,"

and indeed it is difficult to see how it could be otherwisethere is no issue in this case regarding

Burns's capacity to feel pain.

Judge Lesser focused on propane's "evacuant" nature, or its tendency to replace oxygen in

the blood. He found that when propane displaced some oxygen from the limited supply of blood

that Burns's brain was receiving due to his stenosis, a lack of oxygen ("hypoxia") resulted and

caused the stroke. 

of Schwartz's testimony was supported by substantial evidence.11

The Board's impermissible re-characterization of Schwartz's testimony fatally infected its

review of Judge Lesser's rulings. The Board's belief that Lesser was obliged to make a "specific

finding" regarding whether the air within the enclosure Burns entered was 89% propanethe

quantity of propane that Jurinski testified would be necessary to produce an "anesthetic"

effectstemmed from its improper re-characterization of Schwartz's testimony. We cannot permit

the Board thus to "usurp the fact-finding responsibility of the ALJ through its limited power of

review." Mijangos, 948 F.2d at 944.

2. Judge Lesser's Award of Benefits Was Supported by Substantial Evidence

IftheBoard had acceptedasit wasrequired to doJudgeLesser'sreasonable interpretation

of Schwartz's testimony, the question before it would have been an altogether different one. Rather

than asking that Judge Lesser make a finding regarding the 89% propane Jurinski thought necessary

to "anesthetize" Burns, the Board should have considered whether Judge Lesser's conclusion that

Burns'sstroke resulted from "hypoxia" wassupported by substantial evidence. We now address that

question, and conclude that Judge Lesser's finding was so supported.

The record is clear that Burns suffered a stroke. Both medical experts testified that an

insufficient supply of oxygen to the brain will result in an area of brain damagea "stroke." The

experts also agreed that Burns's left carotid artery was 90% blocked; the ALJ's finding that Burns

was peculiarly vulnerable to a reduced blood-oxygen level thus cannot be questioned. Finally, there

is ample evidence in the record from which Judge Lesser could conclude that inhaling propane

displaces oxygen from the blood stream; Schwartz, whose testimony Judge Lesser credited, so

testified, and even Keshishian acknowledged that an individual who breathed enough propane would

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 12 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

12Lesser held that such a measurement could not be obtained by measuring a different site,

because "the exact conditions that existed on the site on the date of the Claimant's injury, such as

ambient temperature, wind speed and direction, size of enclosure, number of propane heaters,

whether any of the propane heaters had blown out or were otherwise inoperative or leaking, and

so forth," could not be duplicated." ALJ I, at 10. The BRB agreed. BRB I, at 5-6. 

13Because substantial evidence is "something less than the weight of the evidence," the

Supreme Court has observed that the "possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from

the evidence does not prevent an [ALJ's] finding from being supported by substantial evidence." 

Labor Board v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp., 316 U.S. 105, 106 (1942). Indeed, under

the LHWCA, the BRB must accept an ALJ's finding even when it is not the more reasonable of

two opposite inferences, as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g.,

Hole v. Miami Shipyards Corp., 640 F.2d 769, 773 (5th Cir. 1981); Newport News, 934 F.2d at

514. 

be "starved" for oxygen.

The only legitimate issue in this case is therefore whether the ALJ's determination that Burns

encountered a quantity of propane sufficient, in combination with hisstenosis, to reduce the available

oxygen in his blood to the point where he suffered an "hypoxia," was supported by substantial

evidence. Assuredly, there is no way to determine with absolute certainty whether Burns's stroke was

precipitated by a temporary lack of oxygen. It would be impossible to ascertain precisely how much

oxygen would have to have been displaced to affect Burns, in his uniquely sensitive condition; there

is, moreover, no way to determine whether the amount of propane necessary to displace that

unknown quantity of oxygen was present in the air at the point Burns entered the enclosure. The

level of propane in the enclosure simply was not measured at the time of Burns's stroke.12

The ALJ was not, however, required to make a "certain" determination of causation, but only

one supported by substantial evidence. As is frequently the case under the "substantial evidence"

standard, the evidence given before the ALJ would have permitted a finding in favor of either party.

13

Judge Lesser could have found that there was not enough propane in the enclosure to affect Burns,

asJudge Neusner later did; record evidence indicating that the area was at least minimally ventilated,

and Keshishian's opinion that it would take a large amount of propane in the air to have a deleterious

effect on a human being, would have supported his decision. Instead, however, Judge Lesser found

that there was a "heavy concentration" of propane, enough to precipitate Burns's stroke. For this

finding, Judge Lesser relied on Burns's credited report of having been "hit" by a wave of propane gas,

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 13 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

and the accounts of disinterested observers that the odor of propane was particularly strong that day

in the area Burns entered. Either way, given the structure of the LHWCA, the BRB was required to

uphold the finding of the ALJ. See Mijangos, 948 F.2d at 944 ("The facts of this case could support

a finding in favor of either party. The choice between reasonable inferences is left to the ALJ and

may not be disturbed if it is supported by [substantial] evidence.").

D. Remedy

The LHWCA vests broad authority in the courts of appeals to "give a decree affirming,

modifying, or setting aside, in whole or in part, [an] order of the Board and enforcing same to the

extent that such order is affirmed or modified." 33 U.S.C. § 921(c). This court has interpreted its

statutory authority to extend, in cases where the BRB exceeds the scope of its review, to reversing

BRB orders remanding to the ALJ and reinstating the original ALJ opinion. See Crum, 738 F.2d at

480; Jaffe, 25 F.3d at 1087.

CONCLUSION

We find that the Board impermissibly examined the evidence independently and substituted

its determinations for those of Judge Lesser, even though Lesser's findings were supported by

substantial evidence. The final order of the BRB is therefore reversed with orders to reinstate Judge

Lesser's original compensation order.

So ordered.

USCA Case #93-1476 Document #91497 Filed: 12/20/1994 Page 14 of 14