Opinion ID: 27707
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exposure to Injurious Stimuli

Text: In order to recover from Sonat under LHWCA, Rogers had to prove that he was exposed to injurious stimuli at Sonat that could have caused the injury to his hearing. See Avondale Indus. v. Director, OWCP, 977 F.2d 186, 190 (5th Cir. 1992) (“Once [a claimant] has demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to benefits by showing that he sustained physical harm and that conditions existed at work which could have caused the harm, he has established his exposure to injurious stimuli during employment covered under the LHWCA, and there exists a compensable claim.”). 4 Sonat contents that the ALJ finding that Rogers was exposed to such stimuli was unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The ALJ relied on Rogers’ interrogatory answer, in which he stated that his work as a “motor man” at Sonat exposed him to loud motor noise and Sonat employee testimony that painters and helpers, other jobs held by Rogers, were exposed to potentially injurious noise. Finally, the ALJ found that, contrary to Sonat’s assertion, there was no evidence that Rogers used hearing protection, noting that a Sonat employee testified that, while use of hearing protection was encouraged, it was not required. We conclude that this evidence constitutes “substantial evidence” supporting the finding of the ALJ that Rogers was exposed to injurious stimuli.