N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AR C C ELLA,

Pe t i tione r,
v. C AR GOTEC SER

VIC E S USA; e t a l., R e sponde nts. No. 17-70998 LAB R No. 16-0281 De pt of La

b or 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 June 7, 2018 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : B YB EE a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s, a nd HUC K , * * * Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r M a

rc C e lla worke d a s a longshore m an in the Port of Ta c om a , W a shington, for many

y e ars. During his e m

ploy m e nt with C a

rgote c Se rvic e s USA, 

# FIL ED
JUN 19 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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).

* * * The Honora

ble Pa ul C . Huc k, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Florida , sitting by de s igna tion.Pe titione r suffe re d a se rie s of work a

nd non-work re lat e d injurie s. Pe titione r
c onte nds tha

t his work-re lat e d injurie s c a u se d him pe rm ane nt tota l -disa

bility and to stop working. He c l a im s be n e fits unde r the Longshore and Ha rbor W orke rs’ C om pe nsation Ac t (the “ Ac t” ), 33 U.S.C . § 908, from his e m ploy e r, C argote c Se rvic e s, USA, a

nd its insura

n c e c arrie r (c olle c tive ly , “ R e sponde nts” ). An Adm inistra

tive La w Judge (“ ALJ” ) re

j e c te d Pe titione r’ s pe rm ane nt disa bility c la im
and, inste a d, a

warde d Pe titione r c om

pe nsation for te m

pora ry tota l disa b ility from the d a te of his se c o nd work injury through theM a xim

um M e dic a l Im

prove m e nt (“ M M I” ) date , August 11, 2011, de te rm ine d by

Pe titione r’ s tre ating orthope dist, Dr. Da ghe r. The ALJ’ s award wa s a ffirm e d by the B e n e fits R e vie w B oa rd (“ the B oa rd” ). This a

p pe a l followe d. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 33 U.S.C . § 921(c ), a nd we a ffirm
.

“ It is we ll se ttle d

tha t the B oa rd’ s findings may

not be disturbe d unle ss the y
are unsupporte d by

‘ substa ntia l e vide nc e on the re c ord c onside re d a s a whole .’ ” C orde ro v . Triple

A Mac h. Shop, 580 F.2d 1331, 1333 (9th C ir. 1978) (quoting Bank s v . C hi. Grain Trimmers Ass’n , 390 U.S. 459, 467 (1968)). M ore ove r, “ [t] he ALJ’ s findings m

ust be a c c e pte d whe n the y are supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . ” Loc k he e d Shipbuilding v

. Dir., OW

C P , 951 F.2d 1143, 1144–45 (9th C ir. 1991). Substa ntia l e vide nc e m e ans “ m ore tha n a m e re sc intilla . It m e ans suc h re le va nt
2e vide nc e a s a re a sona ble m ind m ight a c c e pt a s a de quate to support a c onc lusion.” Amos v

. Dir., OW

C P , 153 F.3d 1051, 1054 (9th C ir. 1998), ame nde d , 164 F.3d 480 (9th C ir. 1999) (quoting Ric hardson v . Pe rale s , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). 1. The ALJ de te rm ine d tha t Pe titione r la c ke d c re dibility due to his inc o nsiste nt, unsubsta

n tia te d , a nd e xa gge ra te d re porting of m e dic a l sy m ptom s.

“ Whe re the ALJ re lie s on witne ss c re dibility in re a c hing his de c ision, our c ourt will inte rfe re only

whe re the c re dibility

de te rm inations c onflic t with thec le ar pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e , or whe re the de t e rm i nations a re inhe re ntly inc re dible or pate n tly

unre a sona

ble .” C orde ro, 580 F.2d a

t 1335 (inte rna l quota t ions a nd c i t a tions omitte d ). He re , the ALJ’ s c re dibility de te rm inat ion, inc l uding his de c i sion to disc ount Pe titione r’ s subje c tive re porting of m e d ic a l sym ptom s, ne i the r c onflic ts with the c le ar pre ponde ranc e of the e vide nc e nor is inhe re ntly inc re dible or pate ntly

unre a sona

ble . The ALJ se t

out in de ta il se ve ra l insta nc e s of Pe titione r re porting pa in a t m a xim um possiblele ve ls de spite
re m a ining a

m bula tory , a le rt, a

nd orie nte d (whic h, the ALJ note d, is not possible ), disc ussing m e dic a l sy

m ptom s e xpe rie nc e d a fte r the work inc ide n ts tha t a re a bse nt from e m e rge nc y

room re c ords, a

nd providing wide ly

inc onsiste n t re ports of his sym ptom s a nd m e dic a l history

to diffe re nt m e dic a l provide rs. Pe titione r’ s de sc ription of oneof the work inc ide nts a lso diffe re d substa ntia lly from a c c ounts
3provide d by

othe r witne s se s. Fina lly , Pe titione r a dm itte d tha t his m e m ory

of pa st
m e dic a l visits a

nd m isse d work wa s we ak. B a se d on this e vide nc e , the ALJ’ s de c ision to find Pet itione r not c re dible will not be disturbe d. 2. The ALJ a lso did not err by disc ounting m e d ic a l opinions of one of Pe titione r’ s tre a ting phy sic ia ns, Dr. C onnolly , whic h we re ba se d on Pe titione r’ s subje c tive m e dic a l re porting. Inste a d, the ALJ re lie d on the opinion of a nothe r tre a ting phy sic i a

n, Dr. Da ghe r, a

nd of e xam ining phy sic ia ns, Drs. B ay s, B rooks,
and Kirsc hne r, who e a c h e xam ine d Pe titione r a nd re vie we d his m e dic a l re c ords to de te rm i ne the ir re s pe c tive m e dic a l opinions. An ALJ ha s disc re tion to c re dit a non-tre ating phy s ic ia n ove r a tre ating phy sic ia n. Whe re the opinion of the c la im ant’ s tre ating p h ys ician is co ntra dic t e d, and the opinion of a nontre ating sourc e is ba se d o n inde pe n de nt c l inic a l findings that diffe r from thos e o f the tre ating phy sic i an, the opinion of the nontre ating sourc e m ay it s el f be subs t an t i al e vide nc e ; it is the n sole ly the provinc e o f the ALJ to re solve the c o nflic t. Andre w s v . Shalala , 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th C ir. 1995). B ut a t the sa m e tim e , a

n ALJ m ay not disc ard the “ s pe c ia l de fe re n c e ” owe d to a tre ating phy sic i an’ s opinion unle ss it is some how c ontra d ic t e d or disc re dite d a s unre a sona ble
. Amos, 153 F.3d
a t 1054.

4The re wa s a substa n tia l c onflic t be twe e n Dr. C onnolly ’ s opinions a nd the opinions of e xam ining, non-tre a ting phy s ic ia n s. The ALJ re

j e c te d Dr. C o nnolly ’ s opinion tha

t Pe titione r suffe rs from

c e rvic a l ra dic ulopa

thy whic h wa s ba se d on Dr. C onnolly ’ s inte rpre tation of M R I re sults c om bine d with Pe titione r’ s subje c tive
re porting of re lat e d sy

m p tom s . Inste a d , the ALJ found m ore pe rsua sive Drs. B ay s, B rooks, a nd Kirsc hne r’ s vie w tha

t without obje c tive e vide nc e of spe c ific
a c c om pa ny ing, re le v ant sy

m ptom s, M R I re sults a lone do not signal c e rvic a l
ra dic ulopa

thy
. The ALJ a lso found unpersua sive Dr. C onnolly ’ s opinion tha t the work inc i de nts pe rm a

n e ntly a g gravate d Pe titione r’ s pre -e xisting gene tic disorde r, M c A rdle ’ s dise a se , be c a

use the re c ord did not e sta blish obje c tive e vide nc e of a link be twe e n the c la im e d injurie s a nd a ggravation of theM c Ardle ’ s dise a se be y ond
a te m pora ry sy m ptom fla re -up. R athe r, the ALJ re lie d on Drs. Da ghe r, B ay s, B rooks, a nd Kirsc hne r’ s c onc lusions tha t the work injurie s did not a ffe c t progre ssion of thedise a se . T he ALJ a lso re lie d on Drs. B ay s a nd Kirsc hne r’ s
c onc lusions, re nde re d a fte r the ir re vie w of the pe rtine n t m e dic a l lite ra t ure , tha t the M c A rdle ’ s dise a se c ould not bepe rm a ne ntly a ggrav ate d by

Pe titione r’ s injurie s ste m m ing from

the work inc ide nts. The ALJ’ s de c i sion not to de fe r to Dr. C onnolly wa s the re fore supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e . 53. The ALJ’ s finding tha t Pe titione r re a c he d M M I on August 11, 2011 is
a lso supporte d by

substa ntia l e v ide n c e in the re c ord. The M M I date “ trigge rs a
c ha nge in the c la ssific a tion of a c la im ant’ s disa

bility from te m pora ry to pe rm ane nt.” Haw aii Ste v e dore s , Inc . v . Ogaw a , 608 F.3d 642, 653 (9th C ir. 2010). De te rm ination of a

n M M I date is a

que stion of fa c t de c ide d by the ALJ through his
e va luation of them e dic a l e vide nc e . Id. The ALJ re l ie d on Dr. Da ghe r’ s M M I de te rm ination to find tha t Pe titione r’ s work injurie s would ha

ve re solve d by

August 11, 2011. Afte

r Dr. Da g he r
e xam ine d Pe titione r se ve ra l tim e s prior to a nd a fte r the work inc ide nts, Dr. Da ghe r
c onc lude d, ba se d on Pe titione r’ s m e dic a l history and e xam inations, tha

t Pe titione r
c ould re turn to work by

August 11, 2011. Afte

r re vie wing Pe titione r’ s m e dic a l
re c o rds, Drs. B ay s a

nd Kirsc hne r a gre e d

tha t Pe titione r’ s work-re lat e d injurie s would ha ve re solve d by that da

te . The only

c ontra ry e v ide nc e is Pe titione r’ s own te stim ony , whic h the ALJ found unre lia ble , a nd Dr. C onnolly ’ s im

pre s sion tha

t Pe titione r’ s M c Ardle ’ s dise a se re quire s tha t he c ontinue to be lim ite d to se de nta ry duty . As disc usse d a

bove , howe ve r, no obje c tive e vide nc e supports a c onc lusion that any of Pe titione r’ s m e dic a l issue s e xisting bey ond August 11, 2011 re late d to the w ork injurie s. On re vie w, substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the ALJ’ s M M I de te rm i nation.
64. The B oa rd prope rly

re je c te d Pe titione r’ s c o nte ntion tha t the ALJ e rre d by not a d dre s sing a c l a im

for work-re l ate d he a da c he s c a use d by the work inc i de nts. 1 He re , Pe titione r fa ile d to prope rly subm i t notic e that he c la im e d he a da c h e s a s a

n injury for whic h he sought c om pe n sation. The Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t a c la im a nt m ust givea de quate notic e of a n injury giving rise to a

c la im for c o m pe nsation unde r the Ac t . U.S. Indus. / F e d. She e t Me tal, Inc . v . Dir., OW C P , 455 U.S. 608, 613 &

n.6–7 (1982) (c iting 33 U.S.C . § 912(b)). Substa ntia l
e vide nc e supports the

B oa rd’ s finding tha

t the ALJ did not err by

not a ddre ssing Pe titione r’ s he a da c h e s a s a se pa ra te work-re late d injury
. The judgm e nt of the B oa

rd is AFFIRM E D
.

1 While Pe titione r did not a lle ge an inde pe nde nt c la i m

for he a da c he s, the ALJ did a ddre ss Pe titione r’ s he a da c he s within a disc ussion of Pe t itione r’ s c re d ibility . The ALJ c ite d se ve ra l e xam ple s of Pe titione r inc onsiste ntly re porting he a da c h e s a

nd a c c om pa ny ing sy m ptom s to diffe re n t

doc tors in support for his c onc lusion tha

t Pe titione r wa s not c re dible
. 7