### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 10, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 16719 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B R B N o. 04- 00190 U N I V E R S A L M A R I T I M E S E R V I C E C O R P O R A T I O N , S I G N A L M U T U A L I N D E M N I T Y A S S O C I A T I O N , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s D I R E C T O R , O W C P , L E S L I E L E E L E W I S , R e s p o n d e n ts .

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B enef i t s R evi ew B oard

_________________________ ( Ju n e 10, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: U n iv e r s a l M a r itim e S e r v ic e s C o rp o r a ti o n a n d S ig n a l M u tu a l I n d e m n ity2

A s s oc i a t i on ( c ol l e c t i ve l y “ P e t i t i one r s ” ) pe t i t i on thi s C our tfo r r e vi e w of the deci si on of the U ni t ed S t at es D epar tm entof L abor R evi ew B oard (“ the B oard”)
a f f i r m i ng the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l a w j udge ’ s ( “ A L J ’ s ” ) D eci si o n a nd O r de ra w a r di ng te m p o r a ry to ta l d is ab ility b e n e f its a n d p e r m a n e n t to ta l d is ab ility b e n e f its to L e s lie L . L e w is , f

i l e d p u r s u a n t to th e L o n g s h o r e a n d H a rb o rW o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a tio n A c t,
a s a m e nde d, 33 U
. S
. C
. § 901 e t s e q. ( “L H W C A ” o r“th e A c t” )
. O n ap p e a l, P e titio n e r s a r g u e th e A L J e rr e d in its to ta l d is ab ility b e n e f its
a w a r d b y : ( 1 ) r e l y i n g o n Le w i s ’ s t e s t i mo n y t o c o n c l u d e th a th e e s t ab l i s h e d a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e f

orc om pe nsat i on unde rthe L H W C A f ori nj ur i e s r e s ul t i ng f

r om a n onthe-j ob ac ci dent ; (2) c on cl ud i ng thatP et i t i on er s f ai l ed t o m ee tthei r bu rden un der t he A c t o f e s t ab l i s h i n g s u i t ab l e a l t e rn a t i v e e mp l o y me n t f o r Le w i s ; a nd ( 3) det erm i ni ng thatL ew i s’ s di sabi l i t i es re sul t ed fr om the w o rk-r el at ed ac ci dentra ther th a n f r o m s u p e r v e n in g in d e p e n d e n t c a u s e s . A t th e h e a r t o f P e titio n e r s ’ a r g u m e n ts
o n ap p e a l is w h e th e rth e A L J e rr e d in its f in d in g s o f

f a c t. U pon thor ough r e vi e w of the r e c or d, as w e l l a s c a r e f ul c ons i de r a t i on of

the part i es ’ bri ef

s, w e concl ud e that the A L J’ s concl usi on s w er e based o n subst ant i al
e vi de nc e , f

i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or , a nd a c c or di ngl y de ny thi s pe t i t i on. T he r e l e va ntfact s an d pr oc e dur a l hi s t ory a r e s tr a i ght f orw a r d. O n M a r c h 26, 2 0 0 1 , w h i l e w o r k i n g a s a l o ngs hor e m a n f o rPe t i t i o n e rU n i v e r s a l M a r i t i meSe c tio n 2 0( a) o f t heAc t prov ide s th at: “ In a ny proc e e dingfo r t

hee nf orc e ment o f a

c laim 1 for c ompensation under this cha pter it shall be pre sumed, in the absenc e of substantial evidence to the contra

ry -- ( a) That the claim comes w ithin the provisions of this chapter.” 33 U .S.C. § 920(a) . To establish a prima f aciecaseand re ceivethe bene fit of this presumption a claimant must show (1) that he suff ere d a har m or injury

and (2) that the alleg ed injury aroseout of and occur red in the c ourse of

employ ment. See U.S. Indus./Fed. Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Dir., O fficeof Workers’ Comp. Program, 455 U.S. 608, 616, 102 S. Ct. 1312, 71 L . Ed. 2d 495 (1982). Ac c ording ly, “ [t]hestatut ec re ate s a rebutta blepre sumption

whic h th ee mpl oye r [h a s] th eduty of rebutting with evidenc e that the accident neither c aused nor ag gravated” the c laimant’s new or exis ting injuries. B rown v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 893 F .2d 294, 297 (11th Cir. 1990) (citingNoble Drilling Co. v. Drake , 795 F.2d 478, 481 ( 5th Cir. 1986) abrogated on other grounds by D i re c t o r , O W C P v . Gre e nw i c hC o l l i e ri e s , 5 1 2 U . S
. 2 6 7 , 1 1 4 S
. C t . 2 2 5 1 , 1 2 9 L. Ed.2d 221 (1994))
. 3 S e r vi c e s , L e w i s w a s dr i vi ng a “ m ul e , ” a s m a l l tr a c t orore l e c tr i c e ngi ne us e d t o t ow boa t s a l ong a c a na l , p u l l i ng a c ha s s i s . A m e c ha ni c a l f a i l ur e ( the l a ndi ng ge a rof the c ha s s i s w a s i n the dow n pos i t i on a nd gotc a ughton a ga ntry t rack ) caus e d the
m u le to s to p ab ru p tly , th r o w in g L e w is a b o u t th e c ab o f th e m u le a n d c a u s in g h is head t o cra sh i nt o the ce i l i ng o f th e ca b and h i s knees t o stri ke the st ee ri ng w heel
a nd da s hbo ard
. L ew i s s us t a i ne d i nj ur i e s t o hi s he a d, ne c k, l e f tw r i s t , ba c k a nd kne e s . A ddi t i ona l l y , L e w i s a l l e ge d tha tthi s a c c i de nta ggr a va t e d hi s pr e - e xi s t i ng
v is u a l i m p a ir m e n t a n d p a r a n o id s c h iz o p h r e n ia a n d f u r th e rr e s u lte d in p o s tt r a um a t i c s tr e s s s y n d r o me a n d d y s th y mi a . Le w i s f i l e d th i s c l a i m s e e k i ng te m p o r a ry a n d p e r m a n e n t to ta l d is ab ility b e n e f its
. T he A L J det erm i ned t hatL ew i s w as enti tl ed t o the L H W C A ’ s s t atut ory pres um pt i on of com pensabi l i ty bas ed on hi s pre se nt at i on of a pri m a f ac i e c as e. 1 S peci fi ca l l y, th e A L J co n clud ed thaton the basi s of L ew i s’ s t es t i m on y, as w el l as4

the t es t i m on y of sev er al m edi ca l do ct ors, L ew i s s uffe re d n ec k, back and k nee i nj ur i e s , a s w e l l a s pos t - tr a um a t i c s tr e s s di s ord er a s a r e s ul tof the M a r c h 26, 2001
ac ci dent
. T he A L J a l so d eterm i ned t hatthe ac ci dentaggravat ed L ew i s’ s pre ex i st i n g v is o n d efi ci en cy an d p re-ex i st i n g p aran o i d sch i zo p h ren i a. C o n seq u en t l y, the A L J c oncl ude d tha t : ( 1) L e w i s w a s unabl e t o r e turn t o hi s us ua l e m pl oy m e nt
a s a lo n g s h o r e m a n , a n d ( 2 ) P e titio n e r s f a i le d to e s tab lis h th e a v a ilab ility o f s u itab le al t ernat i ve em pl oym entw i thi n L ew i s’ s e xt ensi ve ph ys i ca l and p sy chol og i ca l
re stri ct i on s. A cc ordi ng l y, the A L J a w ar ded L ew i s t em po ra ry and p erm anentt ot al d is a b ility b e n e f

its
. T he B oa r d a f

f i r m e d the A L J’ s D e c i s i on a nd O r de ri n i t s e nt i r e ty c onc l udi ng th a t t h e A L J ’ s f

in d in g s w e r e s u p p o r te d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . P e titio n e r s tim e ly pet i t i on ed thi s C ou rtt o revi ew the B oard’ s order
.

“ W e r evi ew the B oard’ s dec i si on s t o d eter m i ne w hether the B oard has
a dhe r ed t o i t s s t a tut ory s t a nda r d of r e vi e w a nd w he the ri tha s e rr e d i n i nt e rpr e t i ng t he l a w . ” Bi a nc o v . G a . Pa c . Corp. , 30 4 F. 3d 10 53 , 10 56 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 02 ) ( i nt e rna l
c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . T h e B o a r d is c o n s tr a in e d b y s ta tu te to
a c c e ptth e f

i n d i n g s o f

th e A LJ u n l e s s u n s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t he
reco rd co n si d e r e d a s a w hol e orunl e s s thos e f i ndi ngs a r e i rr a t i ona l
. S e e P r e s l e y v.Th eEl e venth Circ uit ha s adopte d a s p re c e dent all de c isi on s o f t hefo rm e r F if

th C irc uit 2 rendered prior to October 1, 1981, and all F ifth Circuit Unit B dec isions rendere d after Oc tober 1, 1981. See B onner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc). 5 T i ns l e y M a i nt . S e r v. , 529 F
. 2d 433, 436 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 7 6 ); 33 U
. S
. C
. § 921( b) ( 3) 2 ( “ T he f i ndi ngs of

f a c ti n the de c i s i on unde r rev i ew b y the B oa r d s ha l l be
c onc l us i ve i f s uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d c ons i de r e d a s a
w h o le .” )
. L i kew i se , w e t oo “ ‘ m ustup h o ld th e fa ctual det erm i nat i on s of the A L J i f they
a r e s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d a s a w h o l e . ’ ” Bi a n c o , 3 04 F
. 3d
a t1056 ( quot i ng A l a . D ry D oc k a nd S hi pbui l di ng C orp. v. S ow e l l , 933 F
. 2d 1561, 1 5 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) , ab roga ted o n o ther groun ds by B a th I r on W or ks C orp. v. Di r . , Of f i c e o f W o r k e r s ’ Co mp . Pr o g r a ms , 5 0 6 U. S. 1 5 3 , 1 1 3 S. Ct
. 69 2, 1 2 1 L. E d. 2d 61 9 (19 93 ))
. A cc ordi ng l y, w e “ w i l l no tse tas i de the A L J’ s f i n d in g s of f

ac t

. . . i f s ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt s them
. ” B rook erv. D urocher D ock & D re dg e, 133 F
. 3d 1390, 1392 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( c i t i ng T e xpor t s S t e ve dor e C o. v. W i nchest er , 63 2 F
. 2d 50 4, 51 5 (5t h C i r. 19 80 ) ( e n banc ) )
. P e titio n e r s c o n te n d th a t th e A L J e rr o n e o u s ly c o n c l u d e d th a t L e w is
es t abl i she d apr i ma f

a c i e c a s e un de r§ 2 0( a ) of the A c t . Spe c i f

i c a l l y , Pe t i t i on e rs s a y tha tL e w i s ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s notc r e di bl e , a nd tha tbe c a us e the A L J ’ s f i ndi ngs
w er e base d i n l ar ge part on L ew i s’ s t es t i m on y tho se fi nd i ng s w er e no t su pp ort ed6

b y s u b s ta n tia l a n d c r e d ib le e v id e n c e . “I t is f u n d a m e n ta l th a t c r e d ib ility de t e r m i na t i ons a nd the r e s ol ut i on of c onf l i c t i ng e vi de nc e a r e the p re r oga t i ve of the fa ct f i nd e r , he r e the A LJ . ” A t l
. M a r i ne , I nc . v. Bruc e , 66 1 F. 2d 89 8, 90 0 ( 5th Ci r. U n it B N o v . 1 9 8 1 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d )
. S i m p l y p u t, o u rr e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d r e v e a ls tha tthe A L J ba s e d i t s f i n di ngs on L e w i s ’ s unr e butt e d de pos i t i on a nd he a r i ng t es t i m on y thathe engaged in w ork o pera t i ng a m ul e f or U ni vers al ; thaton M ar ch 26, 2001, the m ul e s t oppe d s hor t , c a us i ng hi m e xt e ns i ve phy s i cal a nd p s y c h o lo g ic a l in

ju r ie s ; th a t d u r i n g h is s h if t, L e w is r e p o r te d th e a c c id e n t to h is supervi sor; thathe fi led a N o ti ce of Inj ury R eport ; and t hatthe l ocal po l i ce in v e s tig a te d th e a c c id e n t a n d f i l e d a r e p o r t, a lth o u g h n o r e p o r t w a s in tr o d u c e d in to
e v id e n c e . M oreover, i n add i t i on t o L ew i s’ s unrebut t ed t es t i m on y, the A L J c on si dere d the t es t i m on y of s ever al do ct ors w ho tre at ed L ew i s bef ore a nd af

t erthe accident , as
w el l as do ct ors h ired by P et i t i on er s t o exam i ne L ew i s pursuantt o h i s c l ai m . D r. P r i t c ha r d, one of

L e w i s ’ s l ong- t i m e tr e at i ng phy s i c i a ns , obs e r ve d L e w i s ha d s i gns of i nj ury w he n e xa m i ne d a f e w da y s a f

t e rthe i nj ury. D r. B oz a , L e w i s ’ s tr e a t i ng ps y c hi a tr i s t , t e s t i f

i e d tha tL e w i s ha d pr e - e xi s t i ng pa r a noi d s c hi z op h reni a , a nd
no t ed thatthe cond i t i on w as ag g ra v at ed by the ac ci dentand t hatL ew i s devel op ed pos t - tr a um a t i c s tr e s s s y ndr om e a nd dy s thy m i a a s a resul tof the a c c i de nt . T hePetitioners also argued that the ALJfailed to c omplete the analysis of the shifting 3 burdens - - spec ifically, whether Petitioners rebutted the presumption of coverag e by introducing evidenc e that the alleg ed ac cident neither cause d L ewis’s injuries nor ag gravated his exi sting injuries. Review of therec ord shows that on pag es 43-44 of the ALJ ’s Dec ision and Order , the 7 te s tim o n y o f

t w o o u t o f

th r e e e y e s p e c ia lis ts w h o e x a m in e d L e w is a d v is e d th a t h is p r e - e x is tin g e y e in

ju ry h a d b e e n a g g r a v a te d b y s u b s e q u e n t tr a u m a . T he A L J a l so fo u n d tha tupon r e vi e w of the de pos i t i on a nd/ orhe a r i ng te s tim o n y o f

th e tw e n ty tw o p h y s ic ia n s w h o tr e a te d L e w is o n a n o n g o in g b a s is
a nd/ ore xa m i n ed L e w i s f orpurpos e s of

hi s c l a i m , none , i nc l udi ng thos e hi r e d by P et i t i on er s, expres sl y deni ed thatan ac ci dent h ad occurre d o r thatL ew i s’ s i nj uri es co ul d n othave res ul t ed fr om the al l eged acc i dent
. F i nal l y, the t es t i m on y of D r. C as t i el l o, a psy chi atri sthi re d b y P et i t i on er s w ho exam i ned L ew i s once, t es t i fi ed tha tthe M a r c h 26, 2001, a c c i de ntm a y ha ve be e n a f i gm e nt of

L e w i s ’ s c ondi t i on, a n ha l l uc i na t i on ora n i m a gi ne d e ve nt . H ow e ve r , D r. C as t i e l l o c oul d not d e f in itiv e ly s ta te th a t th e M a r c h 2 6 a c c id e n t d id n o t o c c u r . th A lth o u g h w e m a y n o t r e w e ig h th e e v id e n c e , w e a s s e s s w h e th e rth e r e is
s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t th e A L J ’s d e c is io n . A r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d , a s w e ll
a s the A L J ’ s e xt e ns i ve 70- pa ge D e c i s i on a nd O r de r , r e ve a l s the A L J ’ s f i ndi ngs
w e r e i nde e d s uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . A c c or di ngl y , w e a gr e e w i t h the B o ard th atth e A L J’ s fi n d in g th a t L e w i s est ab l i sh ed a p ri m a faci e case ag ai n st P et i t i on er s w as supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. 3ALJconsidere d, in a portion of its opinion entitl ed “ShiftingBurden and Ca usation” whe ther Petitioner introduced a

ny evidenc e to rebut L ewis’s prima f aciecaseand sever the alleg ed ca usal link between L ewis’s injuries a nd the alleg ed March 26, 2001, ac cident. Af ter we ighingthe testimony of treating physicians, the ALJconclude d that the greater we ight of the evidenc e reve aled that the alleg ed March 26, 2001 ac cident occurre d and that L ewis’s injuries were a result of that accident. The ALJwas unc onvinced by the limited evidencePetitioners introduced -- na mely Dr. Castiello’s testimony , discussed supra -- to rebut the oc currenceof the accident and the c ausal link betwe en the accident and L ewis injuries. The“ ‘ALJis not bound to accept the opinion of any

particula r medical expert; he is entitled to weigh themedical evidence including therelative cre dibility of the c ompeting e xperts.’”Atl. Marine, 661 F .2d at 900 (quotingHullinghor st Indus., Inc. v. Carroll, 650 F.2d 750, 760 (5th Cir. July 1981). I f a c laimant succe ssfully establishes a prima fac ie ca se of total disability , the burden of 4 proof shifts to the employer to e stablish suit able alternative employ ment. See New Orle ans (Gulfwide ) Stevedore s v. Turner , 661 F.2d 1031, 1038 ( 5th Cir. Unit A Nov. 1981). 8 P e titio n e r s n e x t a r g u e th a t th e A L J e rr e d in r e je c tin g th e te s tim o n y o f its
v o cat i o n al ex p ertT ed B i l sk i , an d co n cl u d i n g th atP et i t i o n ers h ad n o tm etth e ir bur de n of

e s t abl i s hi ng the a va i l abi l i ty of s ui t abl e a l t e rna t i ve em p l o ym e nt . T he 4 A L J a c c or de d l i t t l e w ei ghtt o B i l s ki ’ s r e c om m e nda t i ons be c a us e the y di d not
a c c ountf

orL e w i s ’ s ps y c hol ogi c a l i nj ur i e s , a nd be c a us e the m e di c a l t e s t i m ony in d i cat ed L ew i s su ffered ex t en si v e p sych o l o g i cal d i sab i l i ty th atp recl u d ed h im f r o m e n g a g in g in w o r k r e q u ir in g in te rp e r s o n a l s k i l l s . I n s te a d , th e A L J r e lie d , in l ar ge part , on L ew is’s expert , H arry M cG ee , w ho concl ud ed thatL ew i s w as ent i re l y pre cl ud ed fr om perf orm i ng any e m pl oym entbase d o n h i s psy chol og i ca l
a nd phy s i c a l i nj ur i e s . P e t i t i one r s a s k us t o r e w e i gh th e ex p ert t e s t i m ony a nd di s turb the A L J ’ s f

i ndi ngs . O nc e a ga i n, how e ve r , be c a us e the rec or d c ont a i ns s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r tth e AL J ’ s f a c tu a l a n d c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , we9

h a v e n o b a s is f

o rd is tu rb in g th o s e f

in d in g s . F in a lly , P e tit i o n e r s s a y th a t th e A L J e rr e d b y n o t c o n s id e r in g th e ir

“ s up e r ve ni ng c a us e ” a r gu me nti n w hi c h the y a r gu e d tha tthe r e c or d e s t abl i s hed L e w is ’s p s y c h ia tr ic , o p th o m o l o g ic a l a n d o r th o p e d ic in ju r ie s c o n tin u e d to de ge ne r a t e a f

t e rthe a c c i de nta nd i n d e pe nde ntof the a c c i de nt . W e di s a gr e e . O ur rev i ew o f th e A L J’ s o rd er r ev eal s th atth e A L J, al th o u g h i td i d n o tu se th e p h rase

“ s upe r ve ni ng a nd i nde pe nde ntc a us e , ” d i d i n f a c tm a ke e xt e ns i ve f i ndi ngs re gardi ng the cause of L ew i s’ s i nj uri es as w el l as the aggravat i on o f h is p reexi st i ng in

ju ries . T he A L J c on cl ud ed thatthe evi dence attri bu t i ng L ew i s’ s i nj uri es t o th e Ma r c h 2 6 , 2 0 0 1 , a c c i d e n twa s s u b s t a n t i a l , a n d we a g r e e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n y th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.