UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND

DRY DOCK COMPANY,

Petitioner,

No. 96-1901

v.

JOSEPH E. DAVIS,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Benefits Review Board.

(BRB-93-1426)

Argued: April 9, 1997

Decided: June 12, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam

opinion. Judge Michael wrote a dissenting opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Lawrence Philip Postol, SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

Robert Elliott Walsh, RUTTER & MONTAGNA, L.L.P., Norfolk,

Virginia, for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Matthew H. Kraft, RUTTER

& MONTAGNA, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal was taken from the decision by the Benefits Review

Board awarding workers compensation benefits to Joseph E. Davis

under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33

U.S.C. § 901 et seq. The Administrative Law Judge awarded Davis

permanent total disability benefits because of his back pain, and the

Benefits Review Board affirmed.

Davis was employed by Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry

Dock Company as a senior optical detailer, a type of draftsman. His

job involved placing mylar, a thin plastic film, on top of a table and

marking it with pencil. The job required small scale detail work and

often involved Davis' leaning across the work table. The job was

essentially a sedentary one.

In August 1990, Davis tripped on a section of carpet at his place

of employment and twisted his back. He had previously undergone

disk surgery for a non-work related back injury. Following evaluation

in October 1990, Dr. Richard McAdam, a board certified neurosurgeon, did a thorough examination including a lumbar myelogram and,

based on those findings, performed a lumbar laminectomy, removing

a herniated disk. Six months later, after Dr. McAdam performed a CT

scan of the lumbar spine and ordered an EMG nerve conduction

study, he found "no recurrence of disk disease" and a "normal" EMG,

and so returned Davis to light duty work with permanent restrictions

on lifting over 40 pounds, repeated forward bending, and climbing.

He also prescribed frequent changes of position.

As Davis continued to complain of pain postoperatively, he

requested a second opinion and was examined by Dr. Douglas Griffith, another board certified neurosurgeon, who agreed with Dr. McAdam's evaluation and recommendations. Also, Dr. McAdam did a

 2
complete myelogram in May 1991, which proved "within normal limits for a postoperative patient." Again Dr. McAdam expressed his

opinion that Davis "should be able to work with restrictions," as previously given. He concluded, "I do feel that you can work a regular

40-hour week within these guidelines and, as I understand your job

requirements, you should be able to work your regular job function."

In a letter to Davis' primary-care physician, Dr. McAdam noted that

Davis "has been a management problem and I feel that I must make

a stand that he indeed can work."

Wishing to receive another opinion, Davis on his own initiative

scheduled an examination with Dr. Kathryn Holloway, another board

certified neurosurgeon, who concluded that Davis had"an excellent

decompression of his nerve roots and does not require further surgery." Dr. Holloway referred Davis to Dr. William Walker, who gave

the opinion that Davis "is capable of performing sedentary work in

which he can frequently change his position." While Dr. Walker diagnosed Davis as suffering from Chronic Pain Syndrome, Pain Amplification Syndrome, and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome, he concluded,

"I am unable to determine any concrete pathoanatomical correlates"

to the pain.

In November 1991, after having returned to work for approximately six months, Davis reported to the shipyard clinic that he had

hurt his back again when he tripped over some boxes in the work

area. Dr. Hall, the shipyard clinic physician and also a board certified

neurologist, prescribed heat and returned Davis to work. In December

1991, Davis was again examined by Dr. McAdam, Davis' original

treating neurologist, who recommended that Davis continue working

as "[h]e does not have a disability that would impair his ability to

work."

Finally, Davis was examined by Dr. John Jane in August 1992,

who reviewed the complete CT myelogram and found"a mild to

moderate disc at C4-5 in a central location . . .[and] a defuse arthritic

spine." He concluded, however, that these findings "do not correlate

with [Davis'] clinical symptoms" and that Davis' "lumbar region

studies were totally within normal limits."

In short, while Davis continued to work and to complain of pain

in his back, five doctors, several of whom he visited for second opin-

 3
ions, concluded that they could find no objective medical evidence

correlated to Davis' complaints.

On Davis' workers compensation claim for total permanent disability, the ALJ conducted a hearing, following which he awarded Davis

benefits. The ALJ found Davis' claim of pain to be credible and concluded that there was objective medical evidence to support the claim.

Apart from Davis' medical history, the ALJ concluded:

[Davis' May 1991 myelogram] showed post-operative

changes [at] L4 and a vacuum effect at L4-L5 and mild central disc bulge at L5 (CX-1). He sought out a lumbar myelogram in May of 1991 which is certainly inconsistent with a

man who is not in lower back pain. The CT scan of the lumbar spine on May 15, 1991, indicated L4-L5 degenerative

disease without evidence of frank herniation. There was

some anterior spur formation on the lower two lumbar vertebral bodies. CX 8 and 9 show Claimant underwent a myelogram on August 4, 1992. Results showed chronic changes

throughout the lumbar spine and a disc bulge at L3-L4,

right-sided spondylosis at L4-L5 and a small disc herniation

at L5-S1. Based upon all of this, I find that the objective

medical evidence does sufficiently substantiate Claimant's

complaint of pain.

On appeal to the Benefits Review Board, the board noted that the

ALJ justified Davis' pain claim based on Davis' testimony and on the

ALJ's conclusion that the claim was "sufficiently substantiated by

various myelogram and CT scan tests results documenting spinal

defects and irregularities."

We review the Board's decision for errors of law and to determine

whether the "substantial evidence" supports the ALJ's factual findings. See, e.g., Pittman Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Director,

OWCP, 35 F.3d 122, 127 (4th Cir. 1994); Director, OWCP v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 8 F.3d 175, 179 (4th Cir.

1993), aff'd, 514 U.S. 122 (1995).

While five doctors presented evidence on Davis' condition, none,

as far as we can determine from the record, supported the conclusions

 4
reached by the ALJ in his findings of fact about possible physical

sources of Davis' back pain. That is not to say that the ALJ's review

of the myelograms or CT scans is in error. We simply note that the

ALJ has not, to our knowledge, been qualified as a medical expert in

this case and as far as we can tell, his medical findings are unsupported by medical testimony.

Because of Davis' documented medical history and the failure of

the doctors to focus on the aspects relied on by the ALJ to conclude

that objective medical evidence supports Davis' claim of pain, we

think that rather than reverse, it is the better course to vacate the decision of the Benefits Review Board and remand this case with instructions to the ALJ either to open the record for further medical evidence

on the objective medical condition of Davis' back that supports or

discredits his pain claim or to dismiss Davis' claim as unsupported by

medical evidence.

IT IS SO ORDERED

MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The Benefits Review Board has consistently

held that credible complaints of severe pain can form the basis for a

finding of disability under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. See Miranda v. Excavation Constr., Inc., 13 B.R.B.S.

882, 884 (1981) ("With regard to employer's contention that there is

no objective evidence of a physical impairment, a finding of disability

may be based on claimant's credible complaints of pain alone.");

Richardson v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 14 B.R.B.S. 855, 858 (1982)

("[T]he administrative law judge was correct in concluding that pain

can be a disabling factor."); Harrison v. Todd Pacific Shipyards

Corp., 21 B.R.B.S. 339, 343 (1988) ("When evaluating the evidence,

the administrative law judge may accept or reject the witnesses' testimony and may find that a claimant's credible complaints of pain

alone are sufficient to satisfy his burden of proof."); Anderson v. Todd

Shipyards Corp., 22 B.R.B.S. 20, 21 (1989) ("A claimant's credible

complaints of pain alone may be enough to meet her burden of establishing disability."). Davis's complaints of severe pain in his lower

back followed the removal of a herniated disc from his spine, his second serious back operation in two years. The ALJ found his com-

 5
plaints to be credible. It was well within the ALJ's scope of discretion

to find that Davis was disabled and to award him benefits. Because

there is no need for further evidence or clarification in this case, I disagree with the majority's order of remand and therefore dissent.

 6