N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SAN FR ANC ISC O DR

YDOC K a

nd SIGNAL M U TUAL INDEM NITY ASSOC IATION, LTD., Pe titione rs,
v. C AM ILO E. ZAPANTA a nd DIREC TOR , OFFIC E OF W ORKER S’ C OM PENSATION PR OGR AM , R

e sponde n t s. No. 13-73130 B RB No. 13-0215
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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d Nove m

be r 18, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FER

NANDEZ, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Sa n Franc isc o Dry doc k (“ Dry doc k ” ) se e k s re vie w of a n a ward of disa bility be ne fits to C am i lo Za

pa nta unde r the Longshore an d Ha rbor W orke rs’ 

# FIL ED D EC 07 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.C om

pe nsation Ac t (“ LHW C A” ), 33 U.S.C . §§ 901–950. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 33 U.S.C . § 921(c ), and we a ffirm
. I The ALJ’ s finding tha

t Za pa n ta inte nde d to work two jobs is c le arly supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . The ALJ c re dite d Za pa nta ’ s te stim o ny

tha t he inte nde d to ke e p both jobs— a de te rm ination to whic h we give “ gre a t we ight.” Se e He aly Tibbitts Builde

r s, Inc . v . Dir., Offic e of W ork e rs’ C omp. Programs , 444 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th C ir. 2006) (c ita tion om itte d). M ore o ve r, Za pa nta c ontinue d

to work at both jobs for a

t le a st e ight da

y s following his injury , a

nd he worke d

two jobs on pre vious oc c a sions. Like w ise , Za pa nta ’ s Dry d oc k supe rvisor te stifie d tha t Za pa nta “ wa s not norm a lly

a swing shift person a

nd worke d the swing shift to
a c c om m odate his B e rle x job”

— a fa c t tha t the ALJ re a sona

bly inte rpre te d

a s supporting Za

pa nta ’ s te stim o ny

tha t he inte nde d to c o ntinue working a t both jobs. The fa c t tha

t the ALJ pla c e d le ss we i ght on writte n doc um e ntation a

n d m ore we ight on Za

pa nta ’ s te stim ony , his post-injury c onduc t, a

nd the te stim ony

of his supe rvisor “ is no ba sis for [this C ourt] to disturb [the ALJ’ s] ruling.” Se e id. a t 1103.

2II

Like wise , c o ntra

ry to Dry doc k’ s a sse rtions, theALJ did not fai l to c o nside r the s hrinking na

t ure of the B ay

Are a ship re p a ir industry

whe n de te rm ining Za pa nta ’ s a ve ra g e we e k ly

wa ge . On the c ontra

ry , the ALJ re c o gniz e d tha t
c a lc ulat ion of Za

pa nta ’ s a v e ra ge we e kly

wa g e “ s hould ta

ke into c onside ration the spora d ic nature of the work tha t wa s a va ila b le
. ” As suc h , the ALJ re je c te d Za pa nta ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t his a ve ra ge we e kly

wa ge should bec a lc ulate d ba se d on full-tim e shipy a

rd e arnings, a

nd inste a d de te rm ine d tha t wa ge by c a lc ulating Za pa nta ’ s a c tua l e arnings from his shipy a

rd jobs during the

fifty -two we e k s pre c e ding his injury . Tha t m e thod of c a lc ulation is sure ly
one tha t a “ re a s ona ble m i nd m ight a c c e pt a s a de quate to support [the ALJ’ s]
c onc lusion.” Rhine

v . Ste v e d oring Se rv

s. of Am. , 596 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting Me tro. Ste v e doreC o. v . Rambo , 521 U.S. 121, 149 (1997)). III B e c a use Dry doc k ha s c onc e de d at ora l argum e nt tha t its a dditiona l c la im s are w a ive d, we do not a ddre ss the m . AFFIRM E D.

3