Opinion ID: 22663
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Billiot’s Earning Capacity

Text: Finally, Pride and Signal Mutual contend that the ALJ did not properly consider a 1997 wage survey in calculating Billiot’s earning capacity. The ALJ averaged a 1996 labor market survey with a 1997 survey in his November 2, 1996 modification of his original order. The petitioners contend that the ALJ should have used only the 1997 survey when reconsidering claimant’s earning capacity. “[A] disability award may be modified under [33 U.S.C. § 22] where there is a change in the employee’s wage-earning capacity, even without any change in the employee’s physical condition.” Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 515 U.S. 291, 301 (1995). 8 This Court gives deference to an ALJ’s determination of a claimant’s wage-earning capacity. See Hole v. Miami Shipyards Corp., 640 F.2d 769, 773 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (deferring to the ALJ’s decision to award claimant compensation on the basis of a one percent permanent partial disability in order to assess the full extent of the claimant’s earning capacity in the future); Pulliam, 137 F.3d at 328 (holding that an ALJ may average alternate jobs to calculate a claimants wage-earning capacity). The ALJ, in its November 2, 1998 order, concluded that the jobs listed in petitioners’ August 1997 labor survey averaged with the jobs set out in the August 1996 survey represented a comprehensive estimation of Billiot’s wage-earning capacity. Section 922 of the LHWCA specifically allows for the modification of an original compensation award for the purpose of reassessing a claimant’s wage-earning capacity. See 33 U.S.C. § 922; Rambo, 515 U.S. at 301. We find no reason to doubt the merits of the ALJ’s determination. Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusions, we affirm the Benefits Review Board’s decision. AFFIRMED 9