Opinion ID: 12488
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Manifest Requirement

Text: 14 To satisfy the requirements of section 8(f), this court has required an employer to prove that the claimant's pre-existing permanent partial disability was manifest to the employer prior to the current injury. 4 See Two R Drilling Co., 894 F.2d at 750; Eymard & Sons Shipyard, 862 F.2d at 1223. We explained that [t]his requirement serves an obvious function: a latent defect cannot logically be said to be an 'existing permanent partial disability' and cannot be capable of causing discrimination against the worker. Eymard & Sons Shipyard, 862 F.2d at 1223. 15 We have previously recognized that a diagnosed, pre-existing disability of which the employer has actual knowledge is manifest. Id. In addition, most courts have recognized that an employer's constructive knowledge of a pre-existing permanent partial disability is sufficient to satisfy the manifest requirement. See, e.g., Bunge Corp. v. Director, OWCP, 951 F.2d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir.1991) (If the condition is readily discoverable from the employee's medical record in the possession of the employer, knowledge of the condition is imputed to the employer); Director, OWCP v. Berkstresser, 921 F.2d 306, 310 (D.C.Cir.1990) (When the evidence shows that such a 'disability' was objectively apparent, the 'manifest' requirement has been met). Although this court has not expressly adopted an objective standard for determining whether an employer has satisfied the manifest requirement, we have assumed that there may be instances where although a diagnosis as such is not expressly stated in the medical records[,] nevertheless sufficient unambiguous, objective, and obvious indication of a disability is reflected by the factual information contained in the available records so that the disability should be considered manifest even though actually unknown to the employer. Eymard & Sons Shipyard, 862 F.2d at 1224. The Director does not dispute that an objective inquiry is appropriate to determine whether the manifest requirement has been met. 16 It is undisputed that although the ALJ relied on a pre-existing degenerative cervical spine disease as one basis for finding contribution, his discussion of the manifest requirement lacks any mention of the condition. 5 Both parties urge this court to independently review the record and correct this error without a remand. The Director argues that the record is devoid of any medical evidence to support a finding that Allred's degenerative cervical spine disease was objectively determinable to Ceres prior to the current employment injury. In contrast, Ceres argues that the ALJ made an implicit finding that Allred's degenerative cervical spine disease was manifest prior to the employment injury and that such a finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record. We believe, however, that the same considerations that led us to defer to the ALJ's finding with respect to the contribution requirement would render inappropriate any decision by this court in the first instance with respect to the manifest requirement. Accordingly, we remand the case to the ALJ for a finding on whether Allred's degenerative cervical spine disease was manifest to Ceres prior to the employment injury. See Darby v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., 99 F.3d 685, 689 (5th Cir.1996) (vacating and remanding an ALJ's award for findings consistent with the requirements of the LHWCA).