N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KENNETH H. NEAL,

Pe t i tione r,
v. POR TS AM ER IC AOUTER HAR B OR TER M INAL; e t a l., R e sponde nts. No. 20-72985 B RB No. 20-0277
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B e ne fits R e vie w B oa

rd Subm itte d August 4, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS and M c K EOW N, C irc u it Judge s. Ke nne th Ne a l pe titions for re vie w of the de c ision of theUnite d State s De pa rtm e nt of La

bor B e ne fits R e vie w B oa rd (B RB ), whic h

a ffirm e d the Adm inistra

tive La w Judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing Ne a l’ s pe t ition to modify his e arlie r 

# FIL ED AUG 6 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).de nia l of be ne fits. W e have jurisdic tion pursua n t to 33 U.S.C . § 921(c ), and we de ny the pe tition for re vie w . As the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts of the c a se , we ne e d not re c ount the m he re . W e “ se t a side de c isions of the B RB tha t a re arbitra ry , c a pric ious, a

n a buse of disc re tion, or otherwise n o t in a c c o rdanc e with la w. The B RB m

ust a c c e pt a

n ALJ's fa c tua l findings unle ss the y are c ontra

ry to la w , irrationa l, or not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . W e inde pe nde ntly e va luate the e vide nc e in the
a dm inistra

tive re c ord to e n sure the B RB a dhe re d to the c orre c t sta nda rd of
re vie w.” Shirrod v . Dir., Off. of W ork e rs’ C o mp. Programs , 809 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th C ir. 2015) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c i tations omitte d). A c la im ant m ay

se e k to m odify

an e arlie r award or de nia l of be ne fits ba se d
on a “ c h ange in c onditions” or a “ m ista ke in the de te rm inat ion of fa c t” in the origina l de c ision. 33 U.S.C
. § 922. Ne a l’ s prim ary argum e nt be fore this C ourt is ba se d on the proc e dure of his original tria l be fore ALJ King; spe c ific a lly , he wa s not se rve d notic e o f Dr. Skom e r’ s August 4, 2016 de position. B ut this proc e dura l
c ritic ism , e ve n if true , doe s not de m onstra te c ha nge d c irc um s ta

nc e s or a m ista

ke of fa c t in tha t first de c ision. Ne a l’ s proc e dura l c o nc e rns with his first proc e e d ing should ha ve be e n ra ise d be fore the B RB whe n a ppe a ling ALJ King’ s de c ision, or by a p pe a l ing tha

t de c ision to this C ourt, ra the r tha n via a Se c tion 22 pe tition for
2m odific a tion. In a ddition, his a rgum e nt m ay

be e ntire ly

wa ive d, a s Ne a l did not obje c t to the introduc tion of thede position in his first ALJ tria l. 1 Sim ila rly , the ALJ a nd B R B did not e rr in c onc luding tha t e ve n if c la i m ant did not re c e ive c e rta in
m e dic a l re ports prior to his initia l he aring, tha

t fa ilure doe s not wa

rrant
m odific a tion, sinc e this likew ise doe s not show a c ha nge of c irc um sta

nc e s or a
m ista ke of fa c t. In a ddition, Ne a l a sks us to re v ie w the use of c e rta in doc um e nts in his proc e e dings, inc l u ding m issing x-ra y s a nd othe r m e d ic a l doc um e nts. W e re vie w the c la i m s tha

t Ne a l m a de a

bout the se doc um e n ts be fore the a ge nc y , and we
c onc lude tha

t the a ge n c y

ha d substa

ntia l e vide nc e for its fa c tua l findings a nd did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing m odific a tion. As re le va n t to wha t Ne a l ra ise s in this a ppe a l, the a ge nc y ra tiona lly c onc lude d (1) tha

t Dr. Le e ’ s x-ray

ana ly sis wa s
c onsiste n t with thefirst ALJ’ s findings, be c a use it did not show a

n a c ute injury , (2) that no e vide nc e showe d tha

t ALJ King ha d fa ile d to c onside r Dr. R utc h ik’ s re port, pa rtic u la rly a s tha t re p ort wa s note d by

Dr. Skom e r; a

nd (3) tha t a ny fa ilure to
c onduc t a ha n d grip te st did not dem onstra te tha t the re ports we re unre l ia

ble ,

1 Eve n if re le va

nt, substa n tia l e vide n c e supporte d c o nc luding tha t Ne a l re c e ive d prope r notic e of Dr. Skom e r’ s de position, a s the re c o rd inc lude s a c e rtific a te of se rvic e for the notic e of Dr. Skom e r’ s de position. Ne a l a p pe ars to have ra ise d this issue

be fore the a ge nc y in his m otion for le ave to c o nduc t disc ove ry , a

nd the ALJ did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing tha t m otion. 3pa

rtic u la rly a s doc tors note d Ne a l’ s re luc ta nc e to c onduc t a

ha nd grip te st. 2 Fina lly , though Ne a l doe s not e xplic itly c ha lle nge the ALJ’ s e va l uation of his te stim ony , the Soc ia l Se c urity de c ision, or the

voc a tiona l re p ort, we a d ditiona lly
c onc lude tha

t the a ge n c y

a ppropria te ly e xe rc i se d its disc re tion to de te rm ine tha t the s e pie c e s of e vide n c e did not show a m ista k e of fa c t or c ha

nge d c irc um sta

nc e s. B e c a use the B RB re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t ALJ Alford ha d substa

ntia l
e vide nc e for the fa c t

ua l findings, a

n d the B RB did not m ake an e rror of la w or
a buse i ts disc re tion, we de ny Ne a l’ s pe tition for re vie w to this C ourt.

PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

2 The B RB did inc orre c tly sta te tha t Dr. Skom e r wa s both a

psy c hiatrist a

nd a ne urologist, when he is only a ne urologist, but this e

rror wa s ha

rm le ss. S e e Ludw ig v . Astrue , 681 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th C ir. 2012). Ne a l m ake s no a rgum e nt for pre j udic e from

it, a nd the origina l ALJ de c i sion prope rly re fe rs to Dr. Skom e r only a s a ne urologist. 4