Opinion ID: 26987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gallagher, 219 F.3d 426, 429 (5th Cir. 2000).

Text: Giroir’s appeal boils down to a single ar- We have described the substantial evidence gument: The ALJ’s initial conclusion that wit- nesses had observed Giroir’s injury after the fight but before the alleged accident so taints 1 The LHWCA creates the presumption: “In the decision that we must grant the petition for any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for review. Like the ALJ and the Board before us, compensation under this chapter it shall be we conclude, however, that independent presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to record evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, the contrary (a) [t]hat the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter.” 33 U.S.C. § 920(a). 3 standard as “deferential,” Conoco, Inc., 194 opponent landed and continued wrestling on F.3d at 690, and “somewhat narrow,” the barroom floor. Fontenot testified that Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Kennel, 914 F.2d Giroir arrived at work after the fight with a 88, 90 (5th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence is black eye, busted lip, and requested time off more than a scintilla and evidence that a because he was hurting. (2) Medical experts reasonable person would consider persuasive. could not rule out the fight, rather than an Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. Dir., OWCP, 125 F.3d industrial accident, as the cause of the back 884, 886-87 (5th Cir. 1997). We must not injury. The ALJ found Murphy’s testimony reweigh the evidence or substitute our that the fight could have caused the back judgment for the ALJ’s, but we do have a duty injury more persuasive than Phillips’s opinion independently to review the record. Id. that the fight did not cause the injury. Specifically, the court pointed out that Phillips The substantial evidence standard requires had relied heavily on Giroir’s self-reported us to defer to certain types of judgments made medical history and not mechanical tests or by the ALJ; we defer to the ALJ’s choice be- diagnostic tools. (3) Fontenot testified that he tween conflicting evidence or testimony. would never have ordered Giroir to carry a Avondale Shipyards, 914 F.2d at 90-91. twelve-foot length of angle iron; Fontenot When the ALJ chooses among reasonable, himself had ruptured three disks previously competing inferences from the evidence, we and stated that this increases his awareness of must adopt that inference. Mijangos v. heavy lifting’s risks. Bailey testified that in Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 948 F.2d 941, 945 nineteen years of employment, he has never (5th Cir. 1992); Miller v. Central Dispatch, seen an employee lift and move a piece of 673 F.2d 773, 779 (5th Cir. 1982). Finally, we angle iron measuring over six feet. (4) Giroir, accept the ALJ’s judgments about a witness’s Land, and Bannon Canty testified as credibility unless they are “patently unreason- eyewitnesses to the accident, but the ALJ able.” Hall v. Consol. Employment Sys., Inc., considered their testimony not credible 139 F.3d 1025, 1032 (5th Cir. 1998); Lennon, because of inconsistencies and contradictions. 20 F.3d at 663. Workers had opened an access hole in the hull that would have made it irrational for Giroir to C. enter through the manhole; Giroir’s witnesses Giroir argues that the ALJ’s chronological offered contradictory testimony about whether misunderstanding undermines the entire deci- he cut the angle iron on shore; and shipyard sion, including unrelated credibilit y managers and records reflected that cherry determinations made by the ALJ. On pickers were available to transport large pieces reconsideration, the ALJ admitted the factual of angle iron. All of these subsidiary findings mistake but found that other evidence led the ALJ to conclude that the fight, and not supported his decision. an industrial accident, caused Giroir’s back injury. Giroir fails effectively to contend with the ALJ’s other resolutions of disputed fact: Setting aside the chronological mistake, the (1) Giroir significantly understated the ALJ pointed to ample evidence to support his seriousness of the fight. Bergeron, an conclusion that the fight, rather than the eyewitness, explained that Giroir and his alleged accident, caused Giroir’s injury. Many 4 of the ALJ’s decisions rested on credibility determinations and reasonable inferences from the facts. Even if, arguendo, we disagreed with the ALJ, we could not determine that his decision was not supported by substantial evi- dence. Substantial record evidence supports all of his subsidiary fact findings, and he rea- sonably chose to believe Conrad’s witnesses and disbelieve Giroir’s. The petition for review is DENIED. 5