2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-4-2008 

# N ovolog B ucks C ty v

. OWC P P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3149

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " N ovo lo g B uck s C ty v

. O WC P " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 722. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/722- 1 - NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 3149

___________ NOVOL OG B UC KS CO UNT Y, S I GNAL M UT UAL I NDE M NI T Y AS S OC I AT I ON, P et i t i on ers , v. KI NDE R MORGA N, AC E AM E RI CA N I NS UR ANC E CO ,

J OHN R US S I AN, R espon den t s.

___________ O n A ppeal fr om the O r derdat ed M ay22, 2007 B en ef it s R ev iew B o ard , at N o 0 0 9 0 -1 A L J : R al ph A . R om ano

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J ul y25, 2008 B efore: M cK E E , F U E N T E S , and W E IS, C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t4, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________- 2 -

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: N ovol og B ucks C ount y( “N ovol og”) pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derand opi ni on of the B enef

i t s R evi ew B oar d ( t he “Boar d”) w hi ch uphel d t he fi ndi ng of the A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) t hatN ovol og i s the empl oy err es pons i bl e forthe benef i t s aw ar ded t o cl ai m antJ ohn R us s i an ( “R us s i an”) pur s uantt o t he Longshor e and H a rb o r W o rk e rs ’ C o m p e n s a tio n A c t, 3 3 U .S .C . § 9 0 1 , et s eq . ( t he “A ct ”) . Forthe r e a s o n s t h a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. B ec au se w e w ri te on lyfo r th e p arti es, w e w il l setfo rth o n lytho se f ac ts ne ce ssary to o u r a n a ly sis . O n M a y3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , R u ss ian in ju re d h is le f

t k n e e d u rin g th e c o u rse o f h is empl oym entw i t h N ovol og att he Ferr i s H i l l s Faci l i t y( “Ferr i s ”) . D r . B arr yB ur t on exami ned R us s i an on J une 1, 2004 and di agnos ed hi m w i t h a knee s pr ai n. D r . B ur t on or der ed an M R I w hi ch r evea l ed a c om pl ex t earof the bodyand pos t er i orhorn of the m edi al m eni s cus , an i nt erm eni s cal s i gnal abnorm al i t yw i t hi n t he pos t er i orhorn of the l at er al m eni s cus w hi ch w as s us pi ci ous fort ear , m edi al and l at er al compar t m ent o steo arthrit is, an d m o d era te t o large joint ef fu sion an d a ru p tured B ak er’s cy st. D r. B ur t on r efe r r ed R us s i an t o D r . D avi d E i ngor n, a boar d cert i fi ed or t hopaedi c s ur geon, w ho or der ed R us s i an t o compl et e ei ght een phy s i cal ther apys es s i ons betw een J ul y12 and A ugus t23, 2004. D r . E i ngor n r el eas ed R us s i an fr om hi s car e on A ugus t26, 2004, r epor t i ng t hathe w as al m os tas ym pt om at i c bas ed upon R us s i an’ s s el f- r epor t ed l ack of- 3 -

s ym pt om s . D r . E i ngor n i ns t ruct ed R us s i an atthatt i m e thathe w oul d l i kel yneed a rt h ro s c o p ic s u rg e ry if

h e h a d a n yre c u rr e n t p a in . R u ss ian w a s re lea se d to w o rk w ith o u t re stric tio n s, a n d c o n tin u e d to w o rk a t F e rris w i t ho ut com plai nt fornine and a half m on t hs. D uri ng this peri od , K i nd er acquir ed F err i s, m aking R ussi an an em ploy ee of K i nd er. A ft er bei ng a K i nd er em ploy ee fo r s i x m on t hs, Ru s s i a n p r e s e n t e d t o Dr . Ei n g o r n a g a i n wi t h c o mp l a i n t s o f p a i n i n h i s l e f

tk n e e . An M RI per form ed on thatdayr evea l ed a c om pl ex t earof the bodyand pos t er i orhorn of the m e d ial m e n isc u s w ith a f lip p e d f ra g m e n t in th e m e n isc a l f e m o ra l re c e ss , a q u e stio n a b le t ear of t he an t eri or horn o f t he lat eral m enis cus, m i l d p roxi m al patel l ar t end i no si s, cart i l age l os s , and moder at e j oi nteff us i on w i t h t hi ckene d pl i ca. T hr ee a nd a hal f m ont hs l at er , att he r eques tof N ovol og’ s i ns ur ance carr i er , D r . L efkoe , anotherboar d cert i fi ed or t hopaedi c s ur geon, exami ned R us s i an and r evi ew ed R us s i an’ s m edi cal r ecor ds and concl uded thatt he obj ect i ve medi cal t es t s s ugges t ed thatR us s i an’ s 2004 i nj uryw as t he pr eci pi t at i ng caus e of hi s 2005 di s abi l i t y . O n D ece m ber2, 2005, D r . E i ngor n per form ed s ur geryon R us s i an’ s knee. R u ss ian f

iled c laim s w ith th e U n ited S tate s D e p a rtm e n t o f L a b o r a g a in st b o th h is pr evi ous empl oy er , N ovol og, and hi s curr entempl oy er , K i nderpur s uantt o t he A ct . T he t w o empl oy er s s t i pul at ed as t o t he compens abi l i t yof R us s i an’ s di s abi l i t y , butdi s agr eed a s to th e re sp o n sib le e m p lo y e r. T h e A L J h e ld a h e a rin g o n Ja n u a ry9 , 2 0 0 6 in o rd e r to det erm i ne w hi ch empl oy erw as l i abl e forthe paym entof R us s i an’ s m edi cal expens es and- 4 -

di s abi l i t ybenef

i t s pur s uantt o t he A ct . A tthe hea r i ng, D r s . E i ngor n and Lefkoe opi ned t hatR us s i an’ s i nj ur yw as aggr avat ed dur i ng hi s empl oym entw i t h K i nder , and ther efor e, hi s di s abi l i t yw as nott he natur al pr ogr es s i on of hi s 2004 i nj ury . R us s i an t es t i fi ed thathe m i sl ed D r. E i ng orn as t o the severi t yof h i s sym ptom s and st op ped treatm ent i n A ug ust 2 0 0 4 b ec au se h e f

ea red losing h is j o b if h e d id n o t r eturn to w o rk p ri o r t o K ind er’s ac q u isi ti o n o f F erris. T h e A L J cre d it ed R u ssian ’s t esti m o n yan d fo u n d that R u ssian ’s 2005 di s abi l i t yw as t he natur al pr ogr es s i on of hi s 2004 i nj ury , and thatN ovol og w as re s p o n s ib le f

o r R u s s ia n ’s b e n e f

its . T he B oar d aff

i r m ed the dec i s i on of the A L J , and N ovol og pet i t i oned thi s cour tfor rev iew . N o v o log arg u es th at (1) the re is no t sub stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe A L J’s fi ndi ng t hatR us s i an’ s 2005 di s abi l i t yw as the natur al pr ogr es s i on of hi s 2004 i nj ury ; ( 2) R u ssian ’s t esti m o n ythat h e m isl ed h is trea ti n g p h y sici an s, w h ich w as c en tr al t o the A L J’s d ec isi o n , is no t cred ible; ( 3 ) th e A L J an d the B o ard m isco n stru ed the h o lding in D elaw are R i verSt evedor es , I nc. v. D i r ect orO W C P, 279 F. 3d 233 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; and ( 4) under D el aw ar e R i ver , K i nderi s r es pons i bl e as a mat t erof l aw . W e have j ur i s di ct i on of the p eti ti o n to rev iew the B o ard ’s fina l ord er p u rsua n t t o 3 3 U . S . C . § 9 2 1 (c). II. U ndert he A ct , t he B oar d i s obl i gat ed t o t r eatthe A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctas “conc l us i ve i f s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he r ecor d cons i der ed as w hol e. ” 33 U . S. C . § 921( b) ( 3) . Subst ant i al evi dence i s “more than a mer e s ci nt i l l a. I tm eans s uchN o v o lo g a rg u e s th a t th e A L J a n d th e B o a rd m isc o n stru e d th is c o u rt’s h o ld in g in 1 D el aw ar e R i ver . I n D el aw ar e R i verw e hel d t hatthe s econd e m pl oy eri s r es pons i bl e i f a su b seq u en t i n

juryag g rav ates, acc elerates, or c o m b ines w ith the o ri g inal injury ; ho w ev er a f u ll rec o v e ryf

ro m th e o rig in a l in

ju ryis n o t n e c e ss a ryto sh if t th e liab ili tyf

ro m th e f irst to t he s econd e m pl oy er . A nys t at ement s ori nfer ence s bythe A L J orthe B oar d t hatK i nder i s t he r es pons i bl e empl oy eronl yi f R us s i an had f ul l yr ecove r ed fr om hi s 2004 i nj urypr i or t o h i s 200 5 d i sabi l i t yw ere erroneou s.

- 5 - re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to su p p o rt a c o n c lu s io n .” S m ith v . C a lif a n o , 6 3 7 F .2 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). In re v iew ing the B o ard ’s de cisi o n this co u rtm u st asce rt ain w h ethe r th e B o ard adher ed t o t he appl i cabl e s cope of r evi ew , w hetherthe B oar d comm i t t ed anyerr or s of law , an d w h ethe r th e A L J’s find ing s are su p p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce o n the re co rd as a w hol e. D el aw ar e R i ver , 279 F. 3d at241. T he B oar d corr ect l yhel d t hatther e i s no appor t i onm entof l i abi l i t yi n cumul at i ve i nj ur ycl ai m s undert he A ct . I ns t ead, w hen d e ter m in in g th e re sp o n sib le e m p lo y e r in th e c a se o f m u lti p le tra u m a tic i nj ur i es , i f the di s abi l i t yr es ul t s fr om the natur al pr ogr es s i on of an i ni t i al i nj ur yand w oul d have oc curr ed notw i t hs t andi ng a s ubs equenti nj ury , then t he i ni t i al i nj ur yi s t he compens abl e i nj uryand ac cor di ngl ythe empl oy erat t he t i m e of thati nj ur yi s r es pons i bl e forthe paym entof bene fi t s . I f, on t he o th e r h a n d , the su b se q u e n t in ju rya g g ra v a tes , ac c e ler a tes , o r c o m b in e s w ith cl ai m ant ’ s pr i ori nj ur y , t hus r es ul t i ng i n cl ai m ant ’ s di s abi l i t y , then the su b se q u e n t in

ju ryis th e c o m p e n sa b le in ju rya n d th e su b se q u e n t em p lo y e r is ful l yl i abl e. Id. (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). 1 O u r rev iew o f th e re co rd re v ea ls th at th e B o ard co rrectl yfo u n d that the A L J’s fi ndi ng t hatt he 2005 di s abi l i t yw as the natur al pr ogr es s i on of hi s 2004 i nj uryw as- 6 -

s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . D es pi t e D r . E i ngor n’ s and D r . L efkoe ’ s concl us i ons t hatR us s i an’ s i nj ur yw as aggr avat ed w hi l e w or ki ng forK i nder , thei rt es t i m onyr egar di ng t he obj ect i ve evi dence w as cons i s t entw i t h t he fi ndi ng thatthe 2005 di s abi l i t yw as the n atura l pro g ression o f h is 20 0 4 injury . D r. E ing o rn stated that the c o n d it ion o f R u ssian ’s knee r evea l ed i n t he 2005 M R I t es tw as “more l i kel ythan not ” the natur al pr ogr es s i on of t he condi t i on r evea l ed i n t he 2004 M R I . ( Supp. A pp. at9- 10. ) H e furt heradmi t t ed that t he obj ect i ve t es t s per form ed dur i ng hi s 2004 and 2005 phy s i cal exami nat i ons of R us s i an’ s knee y i el ded the s ame r es ul t s , and thateven a ft erexami ni ng R us s i an’ s knee d u ri n g su rge ryitw as im p o ssible to tell w h ethe r th ere h ad b ee n a se co n d injury . D r. L efkoe , w ho onl yexami ned R us s i an i n 2005, s t at ed thatthe obj ect i ve evi dence i ndi cat ed t hatR us s i an’ s condi t i on w as a natur al pr ogr es s i on of the 2004 i nj ury . D r s . E i ngor n and L e f k o e b a se d th e ir o p in io n s th a t R u ss ian a g g ra v a ted h is in ju ryin th e c o u rse o f

h is empl oym entw i t h K i nderon R us s i an’ s r epor t ed l ack of s ym pt om s i n 2004 and on s ubj ect i ve medi cal evi dence s uch as pai n on the medi al l at er al j oi ntl i nes thathe had not rep o rt ed d u ri n g h is 20 0 4 p h y sical ex am ination s. H o w ev er, th e A L J cre d it ed R u ssian ’s tes tim o n yth a t h e sto p p e d tre a tm e n t an d m isle d D r. E in g o rn a n d a s to th e se v e rityo f h is s ym pt om s s o t hathe coul d r etur n t o w or k i n A ugus t2004. B eca us e the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatR us s i an’ s di s abi l i t yr es ul t ed fr om the natur al p ro g re ss io n o f

th e 2 0 0 4 in

ju ryis s u p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e , N o v o lo g is r es pons i bl e forpay i ng R us s i an’ s benef i t s . Si m i ns ki v. C er es M ar i ne Ter m i nal s I nc. , 35- 7 -

B R B S 136 ( 2001) ; D el aw ar e R i ver , 279 F. 3d at241. III . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on t o r evi ew the B oar d’ s deci s i on aff i r m i ng t he A L J’ s fi nd i ng t hat N ov olog i s l i able for R ussi an’s benefit s.