### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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 continent al 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 p a i n . Thereafter, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 24 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60180 Document: 00511767145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2012No. 11-60180

Doucet was treated for bac k pain and a magnetic resonance imaging examination revealed degenerated and herniated discs in Doucet’s spine. Doucet filed a claim for benefits un der 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 insuff

i cient evidence supports the ALJ’s award determination. Island argues that the evidence demonstrates that Doucet’s back condition is the result of the natural progress i o n of a pre-existing injury unrelated to, and not aggravated by, his work. This Co u rt r e vi ews 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. Hun t e r , 2 27 F.3d 285, 287 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[I]nherent in [§ 920(a)] is the presum p t i o n that an injury is causally related to a worker’s employment.”). To trigger this presumption, the claimant must make a prima f

a c i e s h o w ing 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: 02/24/2012No. 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 connecti o n b e tween the injury and the employment.” Id. at 288; see also Conoco , 194 F.3d at 687-88 (explaining that the “employer [must] rebut [the p r esumption] through facts — not mere speculation — that the harm was notwork-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 t o th e d ay i n question, and Doucet testified that he had no trouble completing the ri go r o u s 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 n e v e r m i ssed a day 1 of work because of back pain prior to the day in question. Although the record contained some conflicting evidence regarding whether D o u cet may have suffered from so m e typ e o f back problems prior to the work day in question, it is not the role of this court to re-weigh that evidence. Substantial e vi d e n c e in the record supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Doucet’s working conditions could have caused , a g gravated, or accelerated his condition. The decision of the Benefits Review Board is AFFIRMED.

Island ’s com pariso n of this cas e to Ma cke y v. Ma ri ne Ter mi nals Corp

. , 21 BRBS 129, 1 1988 WL 232723 (Ben. Rev. Bd. 19 8 8) , i s mis guide d. In Ma cke y , the Board def

err ed to the ALJ’s “as se ss me nt of clai man t’s cre dibi lity, ” sp ecif ical ly the fac t that the ALJ “gave no cre denc e wh ateve r to cl a i m a n t ’ s tes tim ony” regar ding his clai m. Id. at *2. He re, the ALJ sp ecif ical ly f oundD ouce t’s t es tim ony r egarding hi s cond itio n t o b e h ighly c redible. 3 Case: 11-60180 Document: 00511767145 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/24/2012