Source: http://www.dol.gov/brb/decisions/lngshore/unpublished/Jan05/04-0584A.htm
Timestamp: 2014-10-23 08:43:31
Document Index: 221693685

Matched Legal Cases: ['§901', '§921', '§908', '§908', '§922', '§927']

LHCA Unpublished Document: 04-0584A.pdf: Olsen v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc.
BRB Nos. 04-0584, 04-0584A,
TRIPLE A MACHINE SHOP,
WORKERS� COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
04-0606 and 04-0606A
BRB No. 04-0607
DATE ISSUED: 01/31/2005
Appeals of the Orders of Remand of Paul A. Mapes, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.
Thomas G. Olsen, San Francisco, California, pro se.
Robert E. Babcock, Lake Oswego, Oregon, for self-insured employer.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr. (Howard M. Radzely, Solicitor of Labor; Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor; Mark A. Reinhalter, Counsel for Longshore), Washington, D.C., for the Director, Office of Workers� Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor.
Claimant, without the assistance of counsel, and the Director, Office of Workers� Compensation Programs (the Director), appeal the Orders of Remand (2003-LHC-0993 and 2001-LHC-1500), and the Director appeals the Order of Remand (2000-LHC-1504) of Administrative Law Judge Paul A. Mapes rendered on claims filed pursuant to the provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers� Compensation Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §901 et seq. (the Act). We must affirm the administrative law judge�s findings of fact and conclusions of law if they are supported by substantial evidence, are rational, and are in accordance with law. 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(3); O�Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965).
This case has a long and torturous history, and it has been before the Board many times. To briefly summarize, the work-related injury in this case occurred in 1978. In 1982, Administrative Law Judge Halpern awarded claimant permanent total disability benefits, and he granted employer relief pursuant to Section 8(f) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §908(f). In 1986, claimant�s entitlement to medical benefits for the 1978 injury was resolved via a Section 8(i), 33 U.S.C. §908(i), settlement. See Olsen v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., 25 BRBS 40 (1991), aff�d mem. sub nom. Olsen v. Director, OWCP, 996 F.2d 1226 (9 th Cir. 1993). In 1999, employer filed a motion for modification pursuant to Section 22, 33 U.S.C. §922, alleging that claimant�s condition changed from total to partial and that he is employable, and this claim was assigned number 2000-LHC-1504 by the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). In late 2000, claimant filed a claim for benefits, alleging injury due to exposure to toxic substances while at employer�s facility. At nearly the same time, claimant challenged the validity and scope of the 1986 settlement. These combined claims were assigned number 2001-LHC-1500 by the OALJ, but they were not consolidated with case #1504. Neither case #1500 nor case #1504 has been adjudicated.
In October 2001, the administrative law judge issued an Order to Show Cause Why This Proceeding Should Not Be Suspended Until Such Time As The Claimant Obtains Representation From A Licensed Attorney. In that order, the administrative law judge presented the procedural history of the case, including a thorough description of the warnings he has given claimant to refrain from continued �misrepresentations and dilatory tactics,� as well as a description of claimant�s pattern of making false representations, failing to comply with procedural orders, filing frivolous complaints and appeals for delay purposes, filing recusal requests and interlocutory appeals, and making threats for intimidation purposes. Thus, the administrative law judge directed claimant to show why all further proceedings in case #1500 should not be suspended until he obtains a licensed legal representative. On appeal of this Order, the Board held that only Section 27(b), 33 U.S.C. §927(b), applies to claimant�s case if the administrative law judge finds that sanctions are warranted. The Board remanded the case for the administrative law judge to determine whether sanctions are warranted and, if so, to certify the facts regarding claimant�s non-compliance to the district court pursuant to Section 27(b). Further, the Board concluded that the administrative law judge cannot require claimant to obtain legal representation, as he is permitted to represent himself. Olsen v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., BRB No. 02-0612 (June 3, 2003), recon. denied (Sept. 16, 2003).
On remand, and following the administrative law judge�s receipt of a transcript of the deposition testimony of claimant�s treating physician, Dr. Goldman, the administrative law judge ordered the parties to show cause in each of three cases 1 why the cases should not be remanded to the district director�s office until claimant has been assigned a guardian or becomes competent to act as his own attorney. The administrative law judge remanded the claims to the Office of Workers� Compensation Programs (OWCP) �until such time as claimant has been assi