N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

ER IC NOR

M A N SHINE, Pe titione r,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, e t a l., R

e sponde n t s. No. 11-72740 N.T.S.B . No. EM -209 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the Nationa l Tra

nsporta tion Sa fe ty

B o ard A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 14, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER and NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd DEARIE, Se nior Distric t Judge
. ** Eric Norm an Shine pe t itions for re v ie w of the C oa s t Gua rd’ s orde r re voking his m e rc ha

n t m arine r lic e nse for m e nta l inc om pe te nc e . The C o a s t Gua

rd re lie d on
a c ts tha t M r. Shine ha d c om

m itte d a boa rd m e rc ha n t ve sse ls, his re fusa l to submit



# FIL E D
APR 17 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a p propria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble R aym ond J. De arie , Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.to a psy c hologic a l e xam inat ion, a nd re c ords indic ating tha

t he suffe re d from psy c hologic a l disorde rs. Afte r le ngthy proc e e d ings involving m ultiplea ppe a ls, the Nationa l Transporta

tion Sa fe t y B oa rd (“N TSB ” ) a ffirm e d. On a ppe a l, M r. Shine
argue s tha

t the C oa s t Gua

rd e x c e e de d its jurisdic tion in re voking his lic e nse , tha t it ina p propria te ly obta ine d a

nd c o nside re d tre atm e nt re c ords in viola tion of the psy c hothe ra

pist-pa tie nt privile g e , a

nd tha t the proc e e dings viola

te d his dueproc e ss rights. W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. 1. The C oa st Gua

rd is a uthoriz e d to suspe nd or re v o ke m e rc h ant m arine r lic e nse s on the grounds tha t C ongre s s ha s e num e ra t e d in theM aritim e Lic e nse Suspe nsion a

n d R e voc ation Ac t, 46 U.S.C . § 7703. In re le va nt pa rt, § 7703
a uthoriz e s the C o a st Gua

rd to suspe nd or re voke a m e rc ha nt m a rine r lic e nse if the lic e nse holde r “ ha s c om

m i tte d a n a c t of inc om

p e t e nc e re lating to the ope ra t ion of a
ve sse l.” Id . § 7703(4). C o a st Gua rd re gula t ions de fine inc o m

pe te nc e a s the

“ ina bility on the pa rt of a pe rson to pe rform

re quire d dutie s, whe the r due to profe s siona l de fic i e nc ie s, phy sic a l disa bility , m e nta l inc a

pa c ity , or a

ny
c om bina tion the re of.” 46 C .F.R . § 5.31. 2. Afte r a

four-da y he aring, the a dm inistra

tive la wjudge (“ A LJ” ) m a de fa c t ua l findings tha

t M r. Shine ha d c om

m itte d m ultiplea c ts of inc om

pe te n c e while
a boa rd two m e rc ha

nt m arine r ve sse l s: the Ste am ship (“ SS” ) M a ui a nd the M otor
2Ve sse l (“ M /V” ) Pre side nt Ja c kson. W e re v ie w the se fa c t ua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e . Borre

g ard v . N TSB , 46 F.3d 944, 945 (9th C ir. 1995). This is a highly de fe re ntia l sta

nda rd, whic h re quire s us to uphold the findings unle ss,

“ c o nside ring the re c ord a s a whole , a re a s ona ble m ind would ne c e ssa

rily c om e to a diffe re nt c onc lusion.” W

arde ll v . N

TSB , 884 F.2d 510, 513 (9th C ir. 1989). He re , the re c ord doe s not c o m

pe l suc h a re sult. In fa c t, the re c ord e sta blishe s tha

t M r. Shine c om

m itte d num e rous ina

p propria te a c ts a b oa rd the SS M a

ui 1 and M /V Pre side nt Ja c kson. The se a c ts inc lude d le aving a re a s of the ship unprote c te d by fire a la rm s, turning on a

switc h without knowing its func tion, disrupting fire

drills, fa iling to re

port a n d im prope rly re porting for duty , a

nd a c ting in a

n a ggre ssive
m anne r towa

rd his c re wm e m

b e rs a nd supe riors. On theba sis of the s e findings, we
c onc lude tha

t the C oa st Gua

rd’ s orde r re voking Mr. Shine ’ s lic e nse is not

“ ‘ arbitra ry , c a pric i ous, a

n a buse of disc re tion, or otherwise not in a c c orda nc e with la w.’ ” Borre

gard, 46 F.3d a

t 945 (quoting 5 U.S.C . § 706(2)(A)). 3. In holding tha

t M r. Shine ’ s lic e nse should bere voke d, the C oa st Gua rd re lie d both on the se a c ts a nd on e vide nc e tha

t he wa s suffe ring from psy c hologic a l disorde rs to c onc lude tha t he wa s m e n ta lly

inc om pe te nt. This

1 M r. Shine wa s initially disc ha rge d from the SS M a

ui for re fusing a

n orde r to re sum e watc h ove r the ship’ s boile r room . Howe ve r, the firm tha t owne d the s hip la

te r re sc inde d his disc ha

rge . 3e vide nc e pa

rtia lly c o nsiste d of M r. Shine ’ s psy c hologic a l re c ords, whic h the C oa st Gua rd use d its subpoena

powe r to obta in. Se e 33 C .F.R
. § 20.608(d). Mr. Shine
argue s tha

t the se doc um e nts a

re privile ge d unde r J

affe e v . Re dmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), whic h e sta

blishe d a psy c hothe ra

pist-pa tie nt privile ge unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide n c e 501. TheC oa st Gua rd c onte nds tha

t the doc um e nts we re not privile ge d be c a use its re gula

t ions providetha

t the phy s ic ia

n -patie nt privile ge doe s not a pply to suspe nsion a

nd re voc ation proc e e dings. Se e 46 C .F.R . § 5.67. It is not a t a ll
c e rta in, a s M r. Shine urge s , tha t the psy c hothe ra

pist-pa tie nt privile g e would, in this
a dm inistra

tive se tting, ba

r or im pe de the C oa st Gua

rd’ s c o lle c tion of im

porta nt inform at ion in thedisc ha

rge of its c re de ntia ling re sponsibility
. 2 Howe ve r, we de c line to a ddre ss this issue , be c a use the findings of the

ALJ a re re a dily supporte d without re fe re nc e to the subpoe na e d doc um e nts. W e a lso de c line to disc uss M r.

2 Although wedo not a d dre ss the issue , if a psy c hothe ra

pist-pa tie nt privile ge a

pplie s to suspe nsion a

nd re voc at ion proc e e dings, a m odifie d ve rsion m ay be a ppropria te give n that the purpose of the se proc e e dings is to “ he lp m a inta in sta nda rds for c om

pe te nc e and c onduc t e sse n tia l to theprom otion of sa fe t y at se a .” 46 C
. F.R . § 5.5. To the

e xte nt the M ilita

ry R u le s of Evide nc e provide a he lpful ana logy , we note tha

t M r. Shine ’ s re c ords would fa ll unde r an e xc e ption c om pa ra ble to one for e vide nc e “ ne c e ssa ry to e nsure the sa fe ty

an d se c urity

of m ilita ry pe rsonne l, m i lita

ry de pe nde n ts, m ilita

ry prope rty , c la ssifie d inform ation, or the a c c om

plishm e nt of a m ilita

ry m i ssion.” M i l. R . Evid. 513(d)(6).

4Shine ’ s due proc e ss c la im s , be c a use the y are without a

ny e vide ntia ry support in the
re c o rd. As a re sult of thefore going, wea ffirm the C oa s t Gua

rd’ s orde r a s uphe ld by the N TSB
. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D
.

5