* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not prec e dent except under the limit ed circumstances set fo rth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________ No. 05-60411 (Sum mary Calendar)

_________________ NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIP SYSTEMS INC, Petitioner, versus DANILO PERALTA; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Benefits Review Board No. 04-0545
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Northrop Grumman Ship Sy stems, Inc (“Northrop”) peti tions fo r review of a decision by the1 Neither party briefs the applicable standard of review. S ee FED . R. APP . P. 28(a)(9)(B)

(stating th at Appellant “must” include a “concise statem ent of the applicable standard of review”). -2- Benefits Review Board (“ B RB”), affirming the Administ rative Law Judge’s decision to award benefit s to Danilo A. Peralta (“Peralta”), pursuant to the Lo ngshore and Harbor Workers’ Com pensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. Northrop challenges the BRB’s decision to affirm the ALJ’s judgment that Peralta suffered a disabling employment-related injury. Peralta sustained an injury when his supervisor th rew a met al chair at him, stri king Peralta in the left knee. Peralta received medical treatment and underwent arthroscopic surgery to his left knee. He attem pted to return to work, but because of the drugs he was taking to treat his injury, Northrop did not allo w him t o return. After having paid temporary total benefits to Peralta for almo st a year fo llo wing the injury, Northrop terminated Peralta’s employment. Peralta suffered from continuing knee ailment s, fo r which he sought disabilit y benefit s. The ALJ found that the knee injury arose from
a workpl ace incident and awarded disabilit y com pensation and related medical expenses. Northrop appealed, and the BRB affirmed. The BRB will affirm the ALJ’s decision if it is “supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.” 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3). We limit our review to whether the BRB “adhered to it s statutory standar d of review of factual determinations.” O rtco Contractors, Inc. v. Charpentier , 332 F.3d 283, 287 (5th Cir. 2003). 1 Northrop does not substantially challenge th at Peralta has carried his init ial burden of demonstrating th at he suffered an injury and th at the injury occurred in the course of employment , thus triggering the presumption th at he is entitled to coverage. S ee Ortco , 332 F. 3d at 287; 33 U.S.C. § 920(a) (“In any proceeding fo r the enforcement of a claim fo r com pensation
. . . it shall be-3-

presumed
. . . [t]hat the claim com es wit hin the provisions of this chapter.”). Northrop rebutted thi s presumption wit h the report of an orthopedic surgeon who opined th at Peralta’s knee condition was not related to the workpl ace incident. Aft er an employer has rebutted the presumption of coverage, the ALJ assesses causation by lo oking at all the evidence in the record. G ooden v. Director, Office of Worker’s Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Labor , 135 F.3d 1066, 1068 (5th Cir. 1998). Northrop argues that the record evidence is insufficient to establish that Peralta is entitled to benefits. The BRB reviewed the decision of the ALJ and concluded that the ALJ had both discussed the relevant evidence and provided rational reasons fo r choosing amo ngst com peting inferences. The BRB correctl

y noted th at the ALJ has broad discretion to make determ inat io ns b ased on hi s assessment of the medical testimo ny and the claimant ’s own testimo ny. S ee Co noco, Inc. v. Dir., Office of Worker’s Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’t o f Labor , 194 F.3d 684, 691 (5th Ci r. 1999) (observing th at the ALJ possessed the discretion to give greater weight to some medical testimo ny th an others, and to give credit to the claimant’s testimony); Mendoza v. Marine Pers. Co. , 46 F.3d 498, 500 (5th Cir. 1995) (stating th at the ALJ “determines the weight to be accorded to evidence,” “makes credibilit y det e rm inat io ns,” and “is entitled to accept any part of an expert’s testimo ny or reject it completely”). Applying our deferential standard of review, Conoco , 194 F.3d at 690, we cannot say th at the BRB inco rrectl

y determ ined th at the ALJ’s decision was based on substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, the petition for review of the decision of the BRB must be DENIED.