### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60361

KE NNET H E. C RAVE N , P et i t i on er, v. D I RE CT O R, O FFI CE O F W O RK ER S CO M PE N SAT I O N PRO G RA M S, U S D E P A R T ME N T O F L A B O R , N O R T H R O P G R U MMA N S H I P S Y S T E MS IN C

. R e s p o n d e n ts
.

Pet i t i o n f

o r Rev i e w o f

a n Ord e r o f

t he U n i t ed S t ates D epa rt m en t of L abor

B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui t Ju dg es. F O R T U N A T O P

. B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui t Ju dg e: P et i t i on er- ap pel l an t K en n et h E

. C raven a pp eal s t h e B en ef i t s R evi ew Boar d’ s ( “ Boar d” ) N o ve m be r 2 1, 2 00 8 de ni alo f hi s a ppe alt o t he Boa r d, contend i n g t h at t h e B oard erred w h en i t deter m i n ed i t di d n ot ha ve j u ri sdi ct i on t o c ons i derh i s d i r ec t appealt hat bypas se d t he A dm i ni st r at i ve Law Judge ( “A L J”)

. F or the reasons di scussed i n great er det ai lbel ow , t h e C ou rtdi sm i sses C rav e n ’ s a p p e alf

or l ack of

subj ectm att er j u ri sdi ct i on si n ce, as a res u l t of C r aven’ s fai l ure to exhausth i s adm i ni st r at i ve r em edi es , thi s C our t h as n o f i nal
o r d e r f r o m t h e B o a r d t o r e v i e w. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 27, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60361 Document: 00511092935 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2010N o. 09- 60361

See L ON GS HOR E A ND H ARBO R W O RK ERS ’ C OM P E NS A T I ON A CT (“ LHW CA”), 33 U.S. C. 1 §§9 01-5 0, 2 (7), 1 9, 3 9 (b); 20C .F.R . § 701 .301 (a)(7). The statutory term “ deputycommissione r” a n d th e curr ent a dm inis tr ativ e de si gn ation“ di strictdir ecto r”areinte rch a n geab let er ms.

See33U.S.C

. § 9 28 (b) (requiring th at, in the event that adispute arises as toth e 2 amou nt of a dditio nalcompe nsation to whicha clai mant m aybeentitle d, th e de puty comm is sion er sh allset the matter for an info rmal hearin g and issue a written re co mme n dation). 2

F A CT S AND P ROCEDURAL B A CK GRO UND O n J ul y 23 , 2 00 4, w hi l e a c t i ng i n t he c o ur s e a nd s c o pe o f hi s e m pl o ym e nt fo r o ne o f t he Res po nde nt

- ap pe l l e e s , N o r t hr up G r um m an, Cra ve n s us t ai ne d a back i nj u ry. I n i t ia l l y, t h e com pa n y pa i d h i m t em porary tot aldi sabi l i t y. O n ce i t w as deter m i n ed that hi s i nj u ry w as perm an en t , an d n ot t em p o ra ry, C raven a n d N o r th r u p d e b a te d th e e x te n t o f h is p e r m a n e n t d is a b ility (p a r tia l v s . to ta l)
an d t he c o r respond i n g deg ree of add i t i on alcom pen sati on C raven shou l d recei ve. S h ortly the rea ft er, N orth ru p be ga n p a yin g h i m b en efi ts f or p erm a n en t par t i al d i sa b i l i ty. C ra ve n , h ow ev er, d ecide d to pu rsu e b en efi ts f or p erm a n en t t o t al di sa bi l i t y. I n a n a t t e m p t t o r e s o l v e t h e d i s p u t e , t h e d i s t r i c t d i r e c t o r h e l d t wo 1 i nf o r m alc o nfe r e nc e s pur s uantt o t he LH W CA

. A f t er t he c o nfe r e nc e s , t he 2 di st ri ctdi rect or ul t i m a t el y recom m en ded t h at N ort h rup pay C raven com pe ns at i o n f

o r pe r m ane nt pa r t i aldi s ab i l i t y. The c o m pa ny ac c e pt e d t he d is tr ic t d ir e c to r ’ s re c o m m e n d a tio n , b u t C r a v e n d is a g r e e d

. C r a v e n , h o w e v e r , d id
n o t f i l e h i s a p p e a l w i t h t h e A L J

– i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e a d mi n i s t r a t i v e s c h e me C o ngr e s s e s t ab l i s he d i n t he LH W CA

. I ns t e ad , Cr av e n b yp as s e d t he ALJ and f i l ed h i s app ealdi rect l y w i t h t h e B oard, in a n a t t em pt t o ha ve t h e B oard order Case: 09-60361 Document: 00511092935 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2010N o. 09- 60361

I n Andrepontv. Mu rphy Exp lorat ion and P rodu ct ion Co. , 5 6 6 F .3 d 4 1 5( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 9), 3 this Court de termin ed th at an unfavo rab le recommen datio n from the district director on the issue of additio nalcompensation, even if the claimant was late r successful onthat issue befo re the ALJ, would pr eclu de the clai mant’ s recoveryof attorney’s fee s pur suant to§ 28(b) of the L HW CA

. See 33 U.S.C. § 9 28(b)

. Th us, alth ough Crave n recogniz ed th at the LHWCA only administrativel y p r ov ides for adir ect appeal t o th e ALJfollowin g the info rmal recommen datio n of adistrict director, Crave n argued that a s a result of this Court’s de cisio n in Andrepont , hesho uld be permitte d to appeal the is s ue o f a t t or ney’s fee s dire ctlyto the Board. 3 t he di s t r i c t di r e c t o r t o i s s ue a re c o m m e nda t i o n i n hi s fav o r re ga r di ng t he e xt e nt of hi s di sa bi l i t y. 3 O n N ovem ber 21, 200 8, t h e B oard di sm i ssed C raven ’ s ap pea l

. I n doi n g so, th e B o a r d d id n o t e n g a g e in a n a n a ly s is o f th e m e r its u n d e r ly in gC r a v e n ’ s cla im f or add i t i on aldi sabi l i t y com pen sati on , nor di d the B oard eva l u ate t h e m eri t s of t h e di st ri ctdi rect or’ s i n f orm alrec om m en da t i on . I n st ead , t h e B oard d i sm i ssed C ra ve n ’ s ap p ea lf

or lack of j u ri sd i cti on , f i n d i n g th a t: T h e [ di st ri ct di rect or’ s] m em oran da of i n f orm alconferences are not f i n al app eal able act i on s; t h ey do n ot pu rport t o be a f i n aldeci si on or r e s o lv e m a tt e r s w ith in th e a u th o r ity o f th e d is t r i c t d ir e c to r . . . . [ Th us, C r aven’ s] re c our se i s w i t h t he adm i ni st r at i ve l aw j udge, as t he i ss ue r ai se d by cl a i m a n t c onc er ns t he e xt entof hi s di sa bi l i t y, w h i ch r equ i res fact

- f i n di n g by an adm i n i st rat i ve l aw j u dg e i n order t o r e s o l ve a di s put e . As t he di s t r i c t di r e c t o r ’ s m e m o r anda of i nf o r m a lc o nf

e r e nc e s a nd a s s o c i a t e d c o r r e s p o nd e nc e a r e n o t f i nal de c i s i o n s , t h e y a r e n o t a p p e a l a b l e u n d e r S e c t i o n 2 1 (b ) ( 3 ) [ o f t he L H W C A ]. Th us, t he B oar d det er m i ned t hat i t had no j uri sdi c t i on t o he arC r aven’ s appeal bec ause , as a r es ul t of hi s fai l ure t o f

i l e hi s appealw i t h t he A L J f oran evi dent i ar y hear i ng, C r aven’ s r ec or d c ont ai ned no f i ndi ngs of

fac t and no “ f

i nal
a c tio n ” m a d e b y A L J fo r th e B o a r d to re v ie w . Case: 09-60361 Document: 00511092935 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2010N o. 09- 60361

See5 U.S.C. § 5 51 etseq . 4 4 A f t er t h e B oard d i sm i ssed hi s di rectapp eal f or l ack of

j u ri sdi ct i on , C raven t i m el y f

i l ed the i n st an t ap p e a l b e fore u s now . O n app eal , C raven rai ses a
n u m ber of

di f ferent i ssues. Th e cr u x of hi s app eal i s t h at th e di st ri ctdi rect or erre d i n i ssu i n g an i n form a l m em ora n d a tha t recom m en d ed pe rm a n en t par t i al d i sa b i l i ty– a s op p ose d to pe rm a n en t t o t aldi sa bi l i t y. Crave n al so as se r t s se ver al
ar gum e nt s re ga r di ng t hi s C o ur t ’ s dec i s i o n i n A n d repont v. Mu rphy Explor ati on an d P ro d u cti on Co. , 5 66 F. 3d 4 15 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9)

. Cr av e n c o nt e nds t hatt he Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n i n A n d re p o n t vi ol ates t h e A dm i n i st rat i ve P rocedures A ct 4 ( “A PA ” ) as w el las hi s c ons t i t ut i onalr i ght to du e pro c es s. Crave n re ques t s t hat t h i s C ou rtrec on si der Andr e po nta n d corr ectw h at h e h as ch aract eri zed to be a
c o ns t i t ut i o nalf

l aw i n t he Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n.

S TANDARD OF R EVI EW W e r e v i e w a d e c i s i o n o f t h e B o a r d “ u n d e r t h e s a me s t a n d a r d a s i t r e v i e ws t he dec i si on o f

t he A LJ: W het hert he dec i si on is su ppor t ed bys ubst ant i al
ev i d en ce a n d is in a ccord a n ce w i th th e law

. ” E mp ire Un itedS tev ed o re s v . G a tlin , 936 F .2d 8 19, 822 ( 5th C i r. 199 1) ( ci t ati on s om i t t ed). I n t h i s c ase, how ever, Cra ve n d i d n o t a p p e a l t o t h e AL J a n d i n s t e a d f i l e d a d i r e c t a p p e a lw i t h t he Boar d. Thus , a s a r e s ul t of C raven ’ s fai l ur e t o c o m pl y w i t h t he LH W CA a nd
e xha us t hi s ad m i ni s t r at i ve r e m e di e s , t he r e w as no de c i s i o n f r o m a n ALJ f

o r t he B oard t o revi ew . T h e B oard, t h eref ore, ha d n o j u ri sdi ct i on t o i ssue a f i n alorder
o n th e m e r its o f C r a v e n ’ s a p p e a l. B ecau se t h e B oard d i d not i ssue a f i n alorder i n t h i s c ase, t h e f i rst que s t i o n we m us t a ddr e s s i s w he t he r t he Cour t ha s j ur i s di c t i o n t o he art he Case: 09-60361 Document: 00511092935 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/27/2010N o. 09- 60361

See 3 3U .S .C

. § 9 1 9 (a), (b ). 5 20 C.F .R. § 7 02.3 01. 6 5 in s ta n t a p p e a l. S ee S aid v. G on zal es , 48 8 F

. 3 d 66 8 , 67 0 -71 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 7 ) (“ W e
m us t r ai s e t he i s s ue o f o ur a ppe l l at e j ur i s di c t i o n su a sp o n te , if n e c e s s a r y .”). T HIS C OURT ’ S S UBJECT M AT TE R J URI S DI CT I ON

“ Th i s c o u r t ’ s j u r i s di c t i o n t o h e a r a p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w f

r o m a n L HW CA
a d m in is tr a tiv e d e c is io n is d e r iv e d s o le ly fr o m th e a p p e a l p r o v is io n co n ta in e d in 3 3 U

. S

. C

. § 92 1 (c)

. ” G ulf Be s tEl e c . , I

nc . v . Me t he , 396 F

. 3d 601 , 603

- 04 (5t h C i r. 20 04 )

. A br i e f

r e vi e w o f

t he LH W CA ’ s ad m i n i s t r at i ve s c he m e hi ghl i ght s t he j uri sdi c t i onaldef

ec t s c r eat ed byC r aven’ s at t em pt t o b ypas s t he A LJ and appeal hi s c as e di r e c t l y t o t he Boa r d. The LH W CA a nd Dep ar t m e nto f Lab o r ’ s ( “ D O L” ) i m pl e m e nt i ng
r egul at i on s have e st abl i she d a t hre e- t i erpr oc es s f oradj udi c at i ng c l ai m s: 1) i nf o r m alm e di at i o n b e f o r e t he di s t r i c t di r e c t o r ; 2 ) for m alhe ar i ngs a nd fa c t-f in d in g s b y a n A L J ; a n d 3 ) a p p e lla te re v ie w b y th e B o a r d (p o te n tia lly f ol l ow ed by a ci rcui t court )

. C l ai m s are i n i t i al l y ad m in iste re d b y t h e di st ri ct di rec to r. T h e D O L ’ s r e g u la tion s s ta te th a t “th e d istr ict d ire cto rs are em pow ered

5 t o am i cabl y an d p rom ptl y resol ve such probl em s by i n f orm alp rocedures. ” Y et 6 i n cases such a s t h e one p resentl y bef ore t h e C ou rt–w h ere t h e parti es do not
r eac h an agr ee m en t fol l ow i n g the di st r i c t di r ec t or ’ s i nfor m al Case: 09-60361 Document: 00511092935 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/27/2010N o. 09- 60361

Underth ese circu mstance s, thedistrict director’s info rmal recomm en datio n is not 7 eventran smitt edt o th e ALJ

. See 2 0C .F .R

. § 7 0 2 .3 1 7 (c).

“Th e relev antlanguage states that an ALJ h as auth ority‘toh ear and determine all 8 que stion s i n r es pect of such clai m’ an d th e phrase ‘suchcl aim’ refere nces ‘a clai m for compen satio n.”’ Temp. EmploymentServ. v. Trinit y Marine Grou

p, I nc ., 261 F.3d 456 , 46 1 (5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ) (qu otin g3 3U .S .C

. § 9 1 9 (a))

. 33U.S.C . § 919 (d). At this po int a f or m alr ec ord is cr eate d, an d th e ALJmust set 9 forthhis factual findin gs and conclusions on dis p ut ed i ssues in a writtendecision , which is file d b yth e di strictdir ecto r. 2 0C .F .R

. §§ 7 0 2 .3 4 4 , 7 0 2 .3 4 8 , 7 0 2 .3 4 9 ; 3 3U .S .C

. § 9 1 9 (e). 3 3U .S .C

. § 9 2 1 (b)( 1 ). 10 20 C.F .R. § 7 02.3 92. 11 20 C.F .R. § 8 01
. 102 (a) (stating th at the Board h ears appeals “fro m deci sion s or 12 orders with respect to clai ms for compe ns at io n or ben efits”); § 8 02.3 01(a) (statingth at the Board cannot “engage in a de novo procee ding or unrestricted review o f a case brou ght b efore it[];” it is only “authoriz ed to revi ew th e findin gs of fact and conclusions of l aw onwhich the de ci si ono r or de r a pp eale d fromwa s b a se d. ”)

.6 recom m en da t i on –the di st ri ctdi rect or h as n o au t h ori t y t o i ssue a com pen sati on or der

. I nst ead, t he par t i es m ustt ake t hei r c l ai m s t o a n A LJ.

7 8 T h e L H W C A m ak es c l ear t h at any evi de nt i ar y he ar i ng “ sha l lbe cond u ct ed bya [ n] a dm i ni s t r at i ve l aw j udg e [ , ] ” ( no t a di s t r i c t di r e c t o r ) , a nd t he he ar i ng

“ sha l lbe cond u ct ed in a ccor da n ce w i t h t h e provi si on s of sec t i on 554 of

T i t l e 5 [AP A]

. ” I f

t he cl ai m anti s di s s at i s f i e d wi t h t he o ut c o m e f o l l o w i ng t he he ar i ng 9 b e fo r e t h e A L J , t h e c l a i ma n t c a n a p p e a lt o t h e B o a r d

. N o t a b l y , t h e L HW CA 10
c o nt ai ns no pr o vi s i o n t hatc o nt e m pl at e s b ypassi ng t he e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng be f o r e t he ALJ and a ppe al i ng di r e c t l y t o t he Boa r d. Inst ead , i n t h e f

i n ala n d thi rd t i er of

t h e L H W C A ’ s adm i n i st rat i ve schem e, t h e D O L ’ s regulat i on s s t i pu l ate t h at “ ap pea l s m ay be taken f rom com pen sati on o r d e rs w h e n th e y h a v e b e e n fi led a s p ro v id e d for in § 7 0 2 .34 9 .” T h e B o a rd ’s 11
o w n r e gul at i o ns c o nt ai n a l m o s t i de nt i c alpr o vi s i o ns . The Boa r d’ s de c i s i o ns 12 Case: 09-60361 Document: 00511092935 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/27/2010N o. 09- 60361

20C .F.R . § 802 .301 (a). No tab ly , th e re gulations do not permit the parti es tosub mit 13 newevidenc e to the Boar d that wa s not fir st sub mi tte d to the ALJ during theadmi nis tra tive h earin g . See id. § 301 (b) (“Parties shall not submitnew evidence to the Board. Any evidence submitted b y a partywhich is not part o f t he r ecord develop ed at th e h earingbefore the a dm inis tr ativ e law j u dge willb e re turn edwithout b ein gc on si dere d b yth e B oard .”). “The “‘fin al order’requir ementfollows th e co ntours of the finalityrule expressed in 14 28 U.S.C . § 129 1.” Ne wpa rk Sh ip b u ild in g & Re pa ir, I n c. v . Ro u n d t re e, 698F .2d 7 43, 746(5th Cir. 1983) (c itin g Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Pro grams v. Brodka , 643 F.2 d 159 , 161 (3d Cir. 1 9 8 1 ); Na t ’l

St ee l an dSh ip b u ild in g Co . v. Di r. , Off

ice of Wo rkers’

C om p. P ro gra ms , 62 6 F .2d 1 0 6 , 1 0 7 -0 8( 9 thC ir

. 1 9 8 0))

. 7 m us t b e b as e d o n the “ he ar i ng r e c o r d” ( c r e at e d d ur i ng t he he ar i ng be f o r e t he A L J ), a n d “[t ]h e fin d in g s o f fa c t in th e d e c is io n u n d e r r e v ie w b y th e B o a r d s h a ll b e co n c lu s iv e if su p p o r te d b y [th e ] s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . . .” c o n t a in e d w ith in t he ALJ’ s e vi de nt i ar y r e c o r d. 13 I n th e p r e s e n t c a s e , C r a v e n ’s fa il u r e to a p p e a l t h e d is t r ic t d ir e c t o r ’s
r e c o m m e n d a t io n to th e A L J fo r a n e v id e n t ia r y h e a r in gp r e c lu d e s th is C o u r t ’s ju r is d ic t io n to h e a r th e in s t a n t a p p e a l. T h a t is b e c a u s e “[ t ]h is c o u r t ’s j uri sdi c t i on t o he ar a pe t i t i on f orr evi ew f

r om an L H W C Aadm i ni st r at i ve d e c i s i o n is d e r iv e d s o le ly fr o m th e a p p e a l p r o v is io n co n ta in e d in 3 3 U .S .C . § 9 2 1 (c ).” G ulf

Be s t
. El e c . I

nc . v . Me t he, 3 9 6 F .3d 6 0 1 , 6 0 3 -6 0 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). Se c t i o n 9 21 ( c ) l i m i t s t hi s Cour t ’ s revi ew to a r e vi e w o f t he “ f i nalo r de r o f

t he B oa rd

. ” The r e i s no f

i na lor d e r i n t hi s c a s e . Cr a v e n’ s a t t e m p t t o b y p a s s t he ALJ 14 i s par t i c ul ar l y pr obl em at i c be c ause t he LH W C Agr ant s t he A L J th e exc l usi ve aut ho r i t y t o c r e at e a n ev i de nt i ar y r e c o r d upo n w hi c h an appe alm us t b e b as e d. I n tu r n , t h e B o a r d ’s o w n a p p e ll a t e j u r is d ic t io n i s l im it e d t o r e v ie w in gt h e A L J ’s d e c i s i o n b a s e d o n t h e s u b s t a n t i a le v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d

– t hat i s , t h e L HW CA d o e s n o t g r a n t t h e B o a r d a u th o r ity “t o s u b s tit u te its v ie w s fo r th o s e o f th e A L J .” Case: 09-60361 Document: 00511092935 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/27/2010N o. 09- 60361

8 Mi j angos v. A von d aleS h i p y a rd s, I

n c. , 9 4 8 F .2d 9 4 1 , 9 4 4 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). Cons e que nt l y, b e c a u s e 2 0 C. F. R. § 8 0 2
. 3 0 1 ( a ) p r e c l ude s t he Boa r d f r o m e nga gi ng

“ i n a d e novo p r o c e e d in go r u n r e s tr ic te d re v ie w o f a ca s e b r o u g h t b e fo r e it . .

. ” and l i m i t s t he Boa rd’ s a ut ho r i t y t o a “ r e vi e w [ o f ] t he f i ndi ngs o f

fac t a nd
c o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w o n wh i c h t h e d e c i s i o n o r o r d e r a p p e a l e d f r o m wa s b a s e d , ” we concl u de that t h e B oard w as cor rectt o di sm i ss C raven ’ s app eal for la ck of j ur i sdi c t i o n. The Boa r d c o ul d no t r e ac h a de c i s i o n o n t he m e r i t s b e c aus e t he B oa r d w as not pre se nt ed w i t h anyt hi ng w i t hi n i t s st at ut or y purvi ew to revi ew –that i s, i n t h i s case t h ere i s no evi den t i ary recor d or com pen sati on order i ss ued by an A LJ. The B oar d, t her ef or e, w as c or r ec t t o de c l i ne t o i ss ue a f i nal
o r de r o n t he m e r i t s o f Cr av e n’ s c l ai m f

o r a ddi t i o naldi s ab i l i t y c o m pe ns at i o n. W it h n o fi n a l o r d e r fr o m th e B o a r d fo r th is C o u r t to r e v ie w , C r a v e n ’s i nst ant appeali s s ol el y predi c at ed on t he rec om m endat i on l et t erand i nf or m al h ea ri n g m em ora n d a i ssu e d b y t h e distri ct director. “ T h e L H W C Ado es n ot, ho w e ve r , e xt e nd t o t hi s Cour t o r i gi nalj ur i s di c t i on ove r t he a c t i o ns o f t he D i rector i n th e ex ercise of he r ad m i n i strative a u th ority. ” I ngal ls Sh i

pbui l di ng, In c. v. A sb es tos Hea lth C la im a n ts , 1 7 F .3d 1 3 0 , 1 3 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). C o n s e q u e n tly , th e C o u r t d o e s n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to h e a r C r a v e n ’ s a p p e a l. I d. ( “ Re v i e w b y t h i s Co u r t i s l i m i t e d t o f i n a l o r d e r s m a d e b y t h e Bo a r d i n t he
e x e r c is e o f its a dju d ic a to r y a u th o r ity .”) (c itin g3 3 U .S .C . § 9 2 1 (c )); seeal so Mi j angos , 948 F. 2d at943 ( di sm i ssi n g for l ac k of j uri sdi c t i on s i nce “ und er33 U

. S

. C

. § 921 ( c ) , t hi s Cour t ha s j ur i s di c t i o n t o r e vi e w o nl y f i nalo r de r s o f

t he B o a r d .”). T o co n c lu d e o th e r w is e a n d p e r m it C r a v e n to p r o c e e d n o w o n a p p e a l w o u ld enabl e c l ai m ant s l i ke Crave n t o c i r c um ventt he LH W C A ’ s adm i ni st r at i ve Case: 09-60361 Document: 00511092935 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/27/2010N o. 09- 60361

B ecau se we do not h ave jurisdiction to hear his appeal , we donot r eacha conclusion 15 as towh eth erth e di strictdir ecto r erre d inf ailin gt o re co mme n d th at C rav enrecei ve compen satio n for pe rmane nt totaldisability . Likewise, we do not addre ss Craven’s arguments that Andrepont’s interpre tation of 3 3 U .S.C. § 9 28(b) viol ates the APA or his co nstitution al right to due process. First, we find it important to note that “o ne panel of this co urt cannot overrule the decision of anoth er p ane l.” Lowreyv. T ex. A & M Univ. Sys. , 11 7 F .3d 2 42, 247 (5thC ir. 1 997). And finally , even if Craven’s argument that this Court’s de cisio n in Andrepont effec tiv e lyd e ni e dhi ms o m es o rto f ri ghtt oatt o r n e y’ sf e e sc o nt ai n e ds o m em e rit , h is constitutional argu ments regardingth e Andrepont’s articulation of § 928(b) woul d not c ure the jurisdictio na l d efects created b y his attempt to b ypa ss theALJan d circumvent the a dm inis tr ativ e sch em e es tab li sh edinth e L HW CA

. 9 s c he m e –a n a dm i ni s t r at i ve s c he m e t hatCong r e s s de s i gne d “ t o e nc o ur ag e t he p rom p t a n d eff

i ci en t a d m i n i stration of com p en sa ti on cl a i m s. ” R odr iguezv. Compas s Shi

ppi ng Co. , Lt d. , 4 5 1 U .S

. 5 9 6 , 6 1 2 (19 8 1 ). 15 A ccor din gl y, w e D ISM ISS C raven ’ s app eal f or l ack of

subj ectm att er j ur i s di c t i o n. Al lpe ndi ng m o t i o ns a r e de ni e d. Case: 09-60361 Document: 00511092935 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/27/2010