IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60180

Summary Calendar

ISLAND OPERATING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; LOUISIANA

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CORPORATION

Petitioners

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; BRYAN K. DOUCET,

Respondents

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Benefits Review Board

BRB No. 10-0445

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Respondent Brian Doucet worked for petitioner Island Operating

Company (“Island”) on an oil platform on the outer continental shelf. On July

15, 2008, Doucet had a heavy work day exchanging fire extinguishers on another

platform and woke up the next day suffering severe back pain. Thereafter,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 24, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-60180 Document: 00511767145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2012
No. 11-60180

Doucet was treated for back pain and a magnetic resonance imaging

examination revealed degenerated and herniated discs in Doucet’s spine. 

Doucet filed a claim for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., as extended by the Outer Continental

Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq. (“the Act”). An administrative law

judge (“ALJ”) awarded Doucet benefits, and the Benefits Review Board (“the

Board”) affirmed the award. Island petitions for review of the Board’s decision,

arguing that insufficient evidence supports the ALJ’s award determination. 

Island argues that the evidence demonstrates that Doucet’s back condition is the

result of the natural progression of a pre-existing injury unrelated to, and not

aggravated by, his work.

This Court reviews decisions of the Board under the same standard the

Board uses to review the ALJ: whether the decision is supported by substantial

evidence and is in accordance with the law. SGS Control Servs. v. Dir., Office

of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 86 F.3d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1996). This court may

not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ or re-weigh evidence; its review

is limited to determining “whether evidence exists to support the ALJ’s

findings.” Id.

There is a presumption that a claim comes within the provisions of the Act

in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary. 33 U.S.C. § 920(a); Port

Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. v. Hunter, 227 F.3d 285, 287 (5th Cir. 2000)

(“[I]nherent in [§ 920(a)] is the presumption that an injury is causally related 

to a worker’s employment.”). To trigger this presumption, the claimant must

make a prima facie showing of causation. Port Cooper, 227 F.3d at 287. “To

invoke the Section 920(a) presumption, a claimant must prove (1) that he or she

suffered harm, and (2) that conditions existed at work, or an accident occurred

at work, that could have caused, aggravated, or accelerated the condition.” Id.

(citing Conoco, Inc. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 194 F.3d 684, 687

2

Case: 11-60180 Document: 00511767145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2012
No. 11-60180

(5th Cir. 1999)). If a plaintiff establishes this prima facie case, the burden shifts

to the employer to rebut the presumption by pointing to “substantial evidence

establishing the absence of a connection between the injury and the

employment.” Id. at 288; see also Conoco, 194 F.3d at 687-88 (explaining that

the “employer [must] rebut [the presumption] through facts — not mere

speculation — that the harm was not work-related”).

Here, the record supports the ALJ’s determination that the presumption

was triggered, thus shifting the burden to Island to rebut the presumption. The

record also supports the ALJ’s finding that Island did not rebut the presumption

that Doucet’s back injury was causally related to his workplace accident. Doucet

and his wife testified that Doucet never had back problems prior to the day in

question, and Doucet testified that he had no trouble completing the rigorous

functional assessment he was required to performed prior to commencing his

employment with Island. The ALJ explicitly found this testimony “very

credible,” and we accord deference to that credibility determination. See Ingalls

Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 991 F.2d 163, 165

(5th Cir. 1993). The record further indicated that Doucet never missed a day 1

of work because of back pain prior to the day in question. Although the record

contained some conflicting evidence regarding whether Doucet may have

suffered from some type of back problems prior to the work day in question, it

is not the role of this court to re-weigh that evidence. 

Substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s conclusion that

Doucet’s working conditions could have caused, aggravated, or accelerated his

condition. The decision of the Benefits Review Board is AFFIRMED. 

Island’s comparison of this case to Mackey v. Marine Terminals Corp., 21 BRBS 129, 1

1988 WL 232723 (Ben. Rev. Bd. 1988), is misguided. In Mackey, the Board deferred to the

ALJ’s “assessment of claimant’s credibility,” specifically the fact that the ALJ “gave no

credence whatever to claimant’s testimony” regarding his claim. Id. at *2. Here, the ALJ

specifically found Doucet’s testimony regarding his condition to be highly credible.

3

Case: 11-60180 Document: 00511767145 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/24/2012