Opinion ID: 66318
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Causation and Extent of Injury

Text: “This court . . . reviews decisions by the BRB to determine whether it has adhered to its proper scope of review -- i.e., whether the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are consistent with the law.” Gulf Best Elec., Inc. v. Methe, 396 F.3d 601, 603 (5th Cir. 2004). In respect to causation and disability, TPCIGA is requesting this court to overturn the ALJ’s credibility determination because the ALJ relied on the claimant’s expert testimony rather than TPCIGA’s expert testimony. “An ALJ is a factfinder and is entitled to consider all credibility inferences. He can accept any part of an expert's testimony; he may reject it completely.” Ortco Contractors, Inc. v. Charpentier, 332 F.3d 283, 292 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The agency’s determination is supported by expert testimony and we have no basis to overturn its findings as to causation and the extent of injury because these factual findings are based on substantial evidence. For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the petition. 5