Opinion ID: 28634
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: deferred to the AlJ’s fact finding.” Id. at 1037

Text: In June 1995, Savoie sustained an injury n.9. We must defer t o the ALJ’s credibility while working as an outfitter for Trinity Ship- determinations and evaluations of lay and exyards in New Orleans. Trinity and Reliance pert testimony. Mijangos v. Avondale Shiphired Nancy Favaloro, whom the ALJ later yards, Inc., 948 F.2d 941, 944-45 (5th Cir. recognized as an expert in the field of voca- 1992). tional rehabilitation counseling. In October 1998, Favaloro issued a report identifying at Trinity and Reliance argue that to deterleast five jobs that she believed Savoie could mine the extent of Savoie’s disability, the ALJ perform: (1) dispatcher; (2) car door unlocker; had an obligation to consider more than just (3) repair technician; (4) security guard; and Savoie’s physical or medical condition. Rely- (5) flow meter repair mechanic. Favaloro pro- ing on cases such as New Orleans (Gulfwide) vided Savoie with those alternative employ- Stevedores, 661 F.2d at 1037-38, they emphament opportunities, but he felt physically un- size that disability has a mixed economic and able to perform the jobs. medical foundation. According to Trinity and Reliance, the ALJ could not have credited At a formal hearing on January 31, 2000, Phillip’s testimony over Favarolo’s because the ALJ found that Favaloro had relied on in- Phillips did not consider factors such as Sacomplete medical information. The ALJ point- voie’s age, education, industrial history, and ed to the medical opinion of Stuart Phillips, the availability of work in the area. Savoie’s treating physician, to illustrate that his medical condition was more severe than The sensible statement that determining disFavaloro supposed. At that hearing, Savoie ability requires considering medical and ecotestified that he felt he could now work as a nomic evidence falls far short of undermining car door unlocker, repair technician, or flow the ALJ’s finding. Trinity and Reliance’s meter repair mechanic. The ALJ decided that argument inverts the burden of proof. After Savoie could not have performed these jobs in the employee has shown that a job-related fall of 1998 but could on January 31, 2000. injury prevents him from returning to his This led the ALJ to conclude that Savoie had former position, the burden of proof shifts to suffered from a total disability until January the employer to show the extent of disability. SGS Control Servs. v. Dir., OWCP, 86 F.3d 438, 444 (5th Cir. 1996); Rogers Terminal &