Opinion ID: 199352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Continuing, Harmful Exposure

Text: 25 The question at the heart of this case is whether Hutchins continued to be exposed to harmful inhalants after being assigned to the planning office. The ALJ found that he had, pointing in particular to the reported episode near the blueprint room on March 15, 1995, and also crediting Hutchins' testimony that bad air permeated his work area in early 1995 because of a problem with the ventilation system. The Board described the ALJ's conclusions as follows: 26 Given claimant's testimony describing additional exposure and the medical evidence depicting a highly symptomatic condition affected by additional exposure, the administrative law judge stated that he simply cannot accept employer's assertion that claimant was not exposed to harmful stimuli after it became self-insured in 1988. He concluded that claimant's exposure and inhalation of asbestos and other injurious pulmonary stimuli at the shipyard up to and including at least that acute exacerbation on March 15, 1995[,] resulted in his economic disability commencing May 31, 1995. 27 Board Opinion at 5. In concluding that the evidence of record supported the ALJ's findings, the Board noted the judge's reliance on the reports of Drs. Altman, Teel and McArdle, which describe the progression of Hutchins' condition and refer to the same post-1988 exposures to irritants that Hutchins later addressed in his testimony. See supra at 3-4. 28 Although the ALJ's decision was not inevitable, we are satisfied that the Board did not err in determining that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. Notes from Dr. Teel refer to Hutchins' complaint in early March 1995 of poor ventilation in his office building, and Dr. Altman also reported that Hutchins advised him in June 1991 that his cough was exacerbated by conditions at work. A report in February 1992 from Dr. Teel showed that Hutchins was out of work for two weeks in late 1991 and early 1992, and noted that he was still bothered by any environmental exposure to inhalants. A BIW health record dated April 11, 1995 documents a telephone call in which Hutchins said that something in the building bothers him, but he doesn't know what. That an acute episode occurred on March 15, 1995 is well supported by the record, which includes reports from BIW's employee health department, the company's injury report, and reports from Dr. Teel and one of his associates on office visits by Hutchins on March 20 and 23. 29 We recognize that this evidence does not compel the conclusion reached by the ALJ on Hutchins' continuing exposure to irritants, and that other evidence exists to counter it. BIW's medical encounter form detailing the March 15, 1995 episode, for example, reported that an investigation of the area near the blueprint room turned up a five-gallon bucket of floor finishing product, but it appeared tightly sealed. Another equivocal bit of evidence appeared in a June 1991 letter from Dr. Altman to Dr. Teel, in which Dr. Altman observed that Hutchins' recent increased coughing reflects exposure either in changing to his new office building or to the numerous pollens that have been circulating this spring. It was the ALJ's prerogative in the first instance, however, to draw inferences and make credibility assessments, and we may not disturb his judgment and the Board's endorsement of it so long as the findings are adequately anchored in the record. See Pittman Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Director, OWCP, 35 F.3d 122, 127 (4th Cir. 1994) (ALJ's findings sometimes may not be disregarded even if other inferences might have been more reasonable); White, 584 F.2d at 573 (that the facts permit diverse inferences is immaterial). We find that the record satisfies this burden, and consequently affirm the judgment below.