N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SSA TERM INALS, LLC and HOM EPOR T INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, Pe titione rs, v. R OB ER T AM E ZC UA; e t a l., R

e sponde n t s. No. 13-74135 B RB No. 13-0088 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B e ne fits R e vie w B oa

rd Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 3, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, PAEZ, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s. SSA Te rm ina ls, LLC (“ SSA” ) a ppe a ls the de c ision of theU.S. De pa rtm e n t of La bor’ s B e ne fits R e vie w B oa rd (“ the B oa

rd” ) a ffirm ing its lia

bility unde r the

“ la st re sponsiblee m

ploy e r” rule of the Longshore and Ha rbor W orke rs’ C om pe nsation Ac t (“ LHW C A” ), 33 U.S.C . §§ 901–951. W e have jurisdic tion 

# FIL ED FEB 17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.pursua

nt to 33 U.S.C . § 921(c ), and we a ffirm . “ The B RB is re quire d to a c c e pt the ALJ’ s findings unle ss the y are c ontra

ry to la w, irra t iona l, or unsupporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . W e re vie w the B oa rd’ s de c isions for e rrors of la w a nd a dhe re nc e to the substa

ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd.” Me tro. Ste v e doreC

o . v . C re sc e nt W harf &W are house C o. , 339 F.3d 1102, 1105 (9th C i r. 2003) (c ita tions omitte d). SSA a rgue s tha

t c la im ant R obe rt Am e z c ua ’ s injury oc c urre d on Ja nua ry 9, 2009, whilehe wa s e m

ploy e d by Yuse n Te rm ina l s, a

nd not on Ja

nua ry 22, 2009, whe n he wa s e m

ploy e d by SSA. It c ha lle nge s the B oa rd’ s a ffirm anc e of the ALJ’ s findings (1) tha

t c um ulative tra um a a ggrava te d Am e z c u a ’ s unde rly ing disa bility and (2) tha

t som e of the opinions of a n e xpe rt, non-tre at ing phy sic ia n we re due gre ate r we ight tha

n those of the tre a ting phy sic ia n. It a lso c onte nds tha

t substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord doe s not support the de c ision of theALJ or the B o ard. 1. W e have he ld tha

t a n e m ploy e r m ay

be lia ble for an injure d worke r’ s disa bility if the c la im a

n t’ s work for tha

t e m ploy e r “ a ggrava te d, a c c e le ra te d or c om bine d with [the ] c la im ant’ s prior injury ” to re sult in tha t disa bility . K e l le r Found./C ase Found. v . Trac

y , 696 F.3d 835, 838 (9th C ir. 2012) (c ita tions om i tte d). Tha

t rule a pplie s e ve n if “ t

he worke r did not inc ur the gre a te r part of his injury with tha t pa rtic ula r e m ploy e r.” Port of Portland v . Dir., Offic e of W

ork e rs’ C omp. Programs , 932 F.2d 836, 839–40 (9th C ir. 1991) (c ita tion om itte d). 2Although Am e z c ua tore his a nte rior c ruc iate liga

m e nt (AC L) on the job on Ja nua ry 9, 2009, he re turne d to work on Ja nua ry 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 a nd 22. He e xpe rie nc e d signific ant pa in during those shifts, in a d dition to lim

ite d m obility , re sulting in te

m pora ry tota l disa

bility due to his “ e xtre m e and unbe ara ble ” kne e pa in. In re s ponse to inquirie s from c ounse l for the pa

rtie s, Am e z c ua ’ s first tre a ting phy sic ia n, Dr. De lm an, opine d tha t a bse nt a se c ond tra

um a , Am e z c ua ’ s post-injury work did not a ggrava te his injury . Dr. Sisto, a c onsulting phy sic ia

n who e xam ine d Am e z c u a in-pe rson on se ve ra l oc c a s ions, offe re d a c onflic ting opinion, a dvising that a ll post-injury

we ight-be a

ring a c tivity

a ggrava te d Am e z c ua ’ s AC L injury and that tha t a ggrava tion pe rm ane ntly worse ne d Am e z c ua ’ s disa bility . The ALJ offe re d a thorough a

na ly sis of the re c ord a

nd his re a sons for c re d iting Dr. Sisto’ s opinion ove r Dr. De lm an’ s opinion. Those fa c tua l de t e rm i na tions a

re supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord a s a whole , and the ALJ did not e rr in de te rm i ning tha

t Am e z c ua ’ s fina l shift with SSA perm ane ntly worse ne d his unde rly ing disa

bility . 2. The ALJ pre se nte d a thorough a

na ly sis of why he a ssigne d gre a te r we ight to Dr. Sisto’ s opinion, a

nd not Dr. De lm an’ s opinion, re ga rding the a ggrava tion of Am e z c u a ’ s initia l injury . In pa rtic ula r, tha t a n a ly sis foc use d

on e a c h doc tor’ s e va luation m e thods, prior te stim ony in sim ila r worke rs’ c om

p e n sa t ion c a se s, 3e xam ination history of the c la im ant, a

nd profe ssiona l qua lific a tions. In light of those c onside ra tions a

nd the re c ord e vide nc e a s a whole , substa

ntia l e vide nc e supporte d the ALJ’ s de te rm ination to a ssign gre a te r we ight to Dr. Sisto’ s te stim ony re ga rding a ggrava tion of Am e z c ua ’ s unde rly ing disa bility . 3. In light of the

e vide nc e in the re c ord a s a whole and our de te rm inations a bove , we c onc lude that substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the ALJ’ s de c ision a

nd orde r, and the d e c ision a

nd orde r of the B oa

rd. AFFIRM E D.

4