Opinion ID: 732663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 4 Renford Howell appeals from an order of the Benefits Review Board (the Board) affirming an order of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denying benefits to him under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (the Act). 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-50. In connection with a March 31, 1987, on-the-job accident--being struck by a truck--Howell seeks benefits under two sections of the Act: first, he seeks temporary total disability, under 33 U.S.C. § 908(b), for two separate periods during which he claims to have been medically unable to work because of injuries caused by the accident, and second, he seeks permanent partial disability, under 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(1)-(2), for lingering injuries to his right arm, right hip and leg, and cervical spine. On August 3, 1990, the ALJ denied recovery completely on Howell's claim for temporary total disability and awarded only a fraction of the amount he sought for permanent partial disability. 5 With the aid of counsel, he appealed the denial of benefits to the Board, which affirmed the decision of the ALJ by decision and order of July 29, 1992. Soon thereafter, acting pro se, Howell sought reconsideration of the Board's order, offering additional evidence in support of his claim. The Board denied the motion, by order of April 27, 1993, noting that it is limited to consideration of the record developed before the ALJ and that the only recourse for Howell was to seek modification of the ALJ's decision pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.310. Howell did not take such action; rather, he sought review of the Board's underlying decision before this court. 6 Howell here seeks reversal of the administrative determination on the basis of several legal errors. In summary, he argues (1) that the ALJ erred in failing to abide by its duty to develop the administrative record as required under 20 C.F.R. § 702.338, (2) that the underlying decision is not supported by substantial evidence, and (3) that the ALJ misapplied the statutory presumption that on-the-job injuries are covered by and thus compensable under the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 920(a). Each of these arguments is without merit. 7