FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 11, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT
No. 1 0- 15 86 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar Age nc y No. BRB -0 : 0 9- 06 61 POMTOC SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMITY ASSOCIATION, LTD
. c/ o LAMOR TE BURNES & COMP ANY, Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us DIRECTOR, OW CP, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, REYLANS TAPANES, Res po nd en ts .

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Ben efi ts Rev ie w Boa rd (Oct ob er 1 1, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:In th is Lon gs ho re an d Harbo r W orke rs ’ Co m pe ns at io n Actcas e, POMTOC’s em

pl oyee, Rey la ndTapa ne s, i nju redhi s ro ta to r cu ff wh il e atworkon Octo be r 31 , 20 05 . A hear in g was he ldbe fo re an ad m in is tra ti ve law ju dg e (“ ALJ”) to de te rm in e whe th er h is in jury w as co m

pe ns ab le . The ALJ fo un d tha t h e h ad
su st ai ne d ape rm an en t p art ia l d is ab il it y an d award edTapa ne s co m pe ns at io n fo r th atdi sabi li ty. At t he same tim e, th e ALJ en te rta in edPOMTOC’s (an d i ns ur er Si gn al Mu tu al ’s) pe ti ti on forrel ie f un de r Sec ti on 8(f ) of th e Act , 33 U.S.C. § 90 8( f), i.e ., a li m it at io n o f li ab il it y forsu ch co m

pe ns at io n p aym en ts to 10 4 wee ks , on th e g ro un d t ha t Tap an es ha d s us ta in eda he artatt acksi x m on th s ea rli er, i n Ap ril 20 05 , andth athi s co m

pe ns ab le rot at orcu ff d is ab il it y was g reat er due to hi s di sabl in g h eartatt ack
. Acti ng on a st ip ul at edreco rd , an a dm in is tra ti ve law ju dg e (“ ALJ”) ag reed , an d h el d t ha t POM TOC ha d p ro ve n, as Sect io n 8 (f) re qu ire d, t hr ee el em en ts : (1 ) Tap an es ha d apre ex is ti ng pe rm an en t p art ia l d is ab il it y (th e h eartco nd it io n) pri or to in juri ng hi s ro ta to r cu ff; (2) POMTOC was aware o f th e p reex is ti ng co nd it io n, i.e., i t was “ m an ife st ” to POMTOC, p rio r to th e o ccu rren ce o f th e work- rel at ed in jury; and(3) th e p reex is ti ng di sabi li ty m ad e Tap an es ’s di sabi li ty due to th e
ro ta to r cu ff i nju ry

m at eri al ly andsubs ta nt ia ll y gre at er tha n i t wo ul d h av e b een wit ho utth e p reex is ti ng co nd it io n. Th e Dir ect orap pe al edth e ALJ’s Sec ti on 8(f )
2de ci si on to th e Ben efi ts Rev ie w Boa rd , andth e Bo ard , add res si ng on ly the sec on d

el em en t, re ve rs ed
. Reyl an d T ap an es v. POMTOC, BRB No. 0 9- 06 61 (May 20 , 20 10 ) (u np ub .) The B oa rdco nc lu de d t ha t b ecau se th e o nl y ev id en ce b efo re t he ALJ o f Tap an es ’s Apri l 2 00 5 h eartatt ackwas c on ta in edin m ed ic al reco rd s ge ne rat ed af

te r th e Oct ob er 3 1, 2 00 5 ro ta to r cu ff i nc id en t. St at edan ot he r way , th ere was no ev id en ce i n the reco rdfro m whi ch th e ALJ co ul d h av e as cert ai ne d th atPOMTOC “ ha d a ctua l kno wled ge of [ Tap an es ’s] he artatt ackpri orto th e work acci de nt .” Afte r th e Bo ardde ni edPOMTOC’s m ot io n t o re co ns id er i ts de ci si on , POMTOC an d S ig na l M utua l p et it io ne d t hi s co ur t fo r rev ie w. In supp or t o f th ei r pe ti ti on , th es e p et it io ne rs arg ue th atth e Bo ard
ov erl oo ke d t he ALJ’s rel ia nc e o n Tap an es ’s dep os it io n t es ti m on y , whi ch
es tabl is he d t ha t Tap an es was abs en t fr om workfora m on th fol lo win g h is he art at ta ck an d t ha t h is card ia c d is ab il it y was m an ife stto POMTOC. Tap an es ’s de po si ti on was n otpa rt o f th e rec or d. Ackno wled gi ng th is fact , pet it io ne rs arg ue al te rn at iv el y

th atth e cas e sh ou ldbe rem an de d t o t he ALJ fo r “ re-o pe ni ng of t he
ev id en ce; or f

orm od ifi cat io n u nd er Se ct io n 2 2 o f th e Act , so th atan y ev id en ce de em edne ces sa ry

m ay be subm it te d t o fu rth er s up po rt t he rei ns ta te m en t o f th e [ALJ’s] in it ia l Dec is io n.” App el la nt s’ Rep ly Br. at 1 1. Und er the Act, t he Bo ardis co ns tra in edto acce ptanALJ’s fi nd in gs of f act
3un le ss th ey

are i rrat io na l o r un supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i n t he reco rd
co ns id eredas awho le
. Pres le y v. Ti ns le

y Ma in te na nc e S

er v. , 52 9 F .2d43 3, 4 36 (5 Cir . 19 76 ). If th e rec or d c on ta in s n o e vi de nc e to supp or t the ALJ’s fi nd in gs , th th e Bo ardis free to rev ers e. Dir ect or , OW CP v. New

po rt News Sh ip bu ildi ng

& Dry Dock Co ., 13 8 F .3d13 4, 1 44 (4 Cir . 19 98 ). th W e ag ree wi th th e Dir ect orth atPOMTOC s ub m it te d n o p ro of th atitha d kn owl ed ge , actua l o r co ns tru ct iv e, of Tapa ne s’s ca rd ia c co nd it io n be fo re Tapa ne s
su st ai ne d h is rot at orcu ff i nju ry . The Bo ard ’s dec is io n a ndit s o rd er d en y in g POMTOC’s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n are, acc or di ng ly, AFFIR MED.

4