Court Opinion

ID: 2965005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:03.909626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.518217
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                              _________________________

          No. 96-2162

                 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
                          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                             BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION,
                        COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY AND
                          LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                     Respondents.

                              _________________________

                       PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A FINAL ORDER OF

                              THE BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                              _________________________

               Michael S.  Hertzig, Attorney,  United States  Department of
               ___________________
          Labor, with whom  J. Davitt McAteer,  Acting Solicitor of  Labor,
                            _________________
          Carol  A.  De Deo,  Associate  Solicitor,  and Janet  R.  Dunlop,
          _________________                              _________________
          Counsel for Longshore, were on brief for petitioner.
               Kevin M. Gillis for respondents.
               _______________

                              _________________________

                                   November 6, 1997
                               ________________________

               COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge.   This case comes before us on
                       ____________________

          a  petition for  review of a  provision of  a final order  of the

          Benefits  Review Board  ("Board") that  awarded  Bath Iron  Works

          ("BIW")  Section 8(f)  relief  under  the  Longshore  and  Harbor

          Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.    901-950 (1988) ("LHWCA").

          Section 8(f)  of the LHWCA  provides that an employer  obliged to

          pay disability benefits to an  employee may be relieved from full

          liability  if   the   employee's   compensable   disability   was

          "materially and substantially  greater" as a  result of a  prior,

          non-work-related disability.1   The Director, Office  of Workers'

          Compensation Programs ("OWCP"), appeals the Section 8(f) award to

          BIW on a number of grounds, most  of which are unnecessary for us

          to reach,  because  we find  that  the Administrative  Law  Judge

          ("ALJ") failed to determine, and the record contains insufficient

          evidence to show, that  the required standard of  "materially and

          substantially  greater" was met.  We therefore grant the petition

          for review and reverse the Section 8(f) award.

               Claimant Frank H. Johnson worked as a pipe-fitter at the BIW

          shipyard for  various periods from  1951 until his  retirement in
                              
          ____________________

               1    The issue  in this  case concerns who  should bear  the
          primary responsibility for  paying compensation to  the claimant.
          Under  the LHWCA,  the employer  pays the  full amount  unless it
          meets the requirements  set forth in Section 8(f),  in which case
          its liability for payment to disabled employees is limited to 104
          weeks and  any remaining compensation  owed is paid by  a special
          second injury  fund.  33 U.S.C.    908(f)(1)  & (2)(A).  The fund
          consists  of   contributions  from   carriers  and   self-insured
          employers, and is intended to distribute among all  employers the
          cost  of  compensating employees,  while ensuring  that employees
          with disabilities  receive full  benefits for their  work-related
          injuries.  Bath Iron Works Co. v. Director, OWCP, 950 F.2d 56, 58
                     ___________________    ______________
          n.4 (1st Cir. 1991).

                                         -2-

          January 1984.   During his employment  at BIW, he  was exposed to

          and inhaled asbestos dust and fibers at the shipyard.  Claimant's

          exposure ended  in 1978 or  1979, when the crumbling  asbestos in

          his work area was sealed.  

               In 1986 claimant was  diagnosed as suffering from a  twenty-

          five  percent impairment due  to asbestosis, and  he successfully

          filed  a claim for workers' compensation benefits under the LHWCA

          based on that impairment.  The ALJ's award of Section 8(f) relief

          to  BIW  became a  final  order  for  the purposes  of  obtaining

          judicial review before  us after the Board failed  to take action

          on the Director's appeal within a year.2

               Because  the appropriateness of Section 8(f) relief turns on

          the source and nature of claimant's pulmonary impairment, we must

          examine closely the medical evidence in the record.  

                                 THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE

               The  earliest  evidence  that   claimant  suffered  from  an

          asbestos-related lung condition appears to have come in 1982 from

                              
          ____________________

               2    Another ALJ initially  awarded BIW Section  8(f) relief
          from full liability based on evidence that claimant suffered from
          a  pre-existing   knee  injury,   as  well   as  "other   medical
          conditions," all  of which  were  manifest during  the period  of
          claimant's  employment  at  BIW and  contributed  to  his overall
          disability.    The  Director,  OWCP,  successfully  appealed  the
          Section 8(f) award, and  the Board remanded the  case, concluding
          that claimant's knee condition could  not be used as a basis  for
          relief because it was unrelated to his pulmonary impairment.  The
          Board directed the  ALJ on remand to consider  whether the "other
          medical conditions" by themselves formed a basis for Section 8(f)
          relief.  We review the remand decision here.

                                         -3-

          a  routine chest  x-ray  performed prior  to  a knee  operation.3

          According to Dr. Schall, claimant's treating physician, the x-ray

          revealed "interstitial  fibrosis and  pleural plaques  consistent

          with asbestosis."6   Multiple pulmonary function tests  conducted

          from that  time through 1986 revealed that claimant suffered from

          diminished lung function.

               Dr.  Schall, in  a letter  dated  December 1983,  summarized

          claimant's condition at that time, 

               His most  recent chest x-ray taken May  19, 1983 showed
               pulmonary  findings of  a  thickened pleura  with  some
               calcific pleuritides  over the diaphragm  and increased
               pulmonary   markings  inferiorly.    He  still  has  no
               significant  complaints  of shortness  of breath.   His
               pulmonary  functions and chest x-rays show a mixture of
               chronic  obstructive pulmonary  disease and  asbestosis
               with   some  restrictive   component.[7]     Certainly,
               asbestosis can be considered a contribution .  . . [to]
               his pulmonary status.  He is currently not disabled  on
               a pulmonary  basis and  would be  capable of  full-time
               regular  employment.     At  the   present  time   it's
               impossible to predict what his prognosis is.  Certainly
               his  chronic obstructive pulmonary  disease is far more
               risky to him and is in a further advanced state than is
               his asbestosis.   He  has the  concomitant problems  of
               obesity, chronic  alcoholism and  severe osteoarthritis

                              
          ____________________

               3    Dr. Schall stated that claimant showed some evidence of
          asbestos exposure as early as 1978.   As there is no evidence  in
          the  medical record  indicating  physical  damage resulting  from
          asbestos   exposure  before  1982,   we  agree  with   the  ALJ's
          determination that claimant's asbestos-related lung condition  is
          properly dated back to 1982.

               6    After  this  diagnosis,  claimant  filed  a  protective
          claim, thereby satisfying the LHWCA's notice requirements.

               7    In reporting on claimant's condition, Dr. Schall refers
          to   claimant's   "obstructive"   pulmonary  function   and   his
          "restrictive"  pulmonary function.    The  former  is  claimant's
          condition  independent of  asbestosis, while  the  latter is  his
          asbestos-related condition.

                                         -4-

               of his  knees.   His primary  disabling feature  is his
               knees.8  

          In  deposition  testimony  in  1988,  Dr.  Schall  described  the

          claimant's condition as "severe obstructive with mild to moderate

          restrictive disease."  

               Dr.  Killian,  a   physician  specializing  in   respiratory

          medicine,  in  a March  1986  letter  reporting  upon his  recent

          examination of  claimant, concluded  that claimant suffered  from

          five conditions:   asbestosis  of  the left  lower lobe,  pleural

          plaques,  obesity, hypertension,  and  chest  pain suggestive  of

          ischemic heart disease.  He added that claimant "does indeed have

          both pleural plaques and asbestosis  which is due to his asbestos

          exposure  occurring at work.   The  degree of  disability present

          from a pulmonary  perspective can be  classified as mild.  . .  .

          [H]is present  impairment has caused noticeable disability within

          the  last  year or  so."   In deposition  testimony in  1988, Dr.

          Killian concluded that claimant's cigarette smoking, his obesity,

                              
          ____________________

               8    In  this letter,  Dr. Schall  also  gave the  following
          review of claimant's medical history:

               The  man  was   first  seen  in  1978  for   a  routine
               examination prior  to arthroscopic  examination of  his
               knees.   He  had at  that time  a smoking  history that
               included in excess  of 100 pack years but  had been off
               cigarettes  for eight months.   He denied  shortness of
               breath  stating that  his  knees  limited his  physical
               activities.   He had a  history of hypertension.   He's
               worked  as  a  pipe-fitter  and  has  been  exposed  to
               asbestos  through his  work environment.   His physical
               findings at that time showed his chest to be clear with
               a fair  respiratory expansion.   Chest  x-rays at  that
               time  showed some  pulmonary  scarring consistent  with
               asbestosis.

                                         -5-

          his arthritic knees  and lung damage caused  by asbestos exposure

          contributed to claimant's overall disability. 

               In  1987  a  pulmonary   specialist,  Dr.  Corbin,  examined

          claimant  and  reviewed   his  pulmonary  function  tests.     He

          concluded, 

               I believe that Mr. Johnson has asbestos-related pleural
               disease and pleural  fibrosis. . . . I  am certain that
               this was related to his exposure to asbestos during the
               time of his employment  at Bath Iron Works. . .  .  Mr.
               Johnson also has restrictive lung disease which is mild
               to moderate  in degree. . . .  I feel certain that this
               is  related to  his pleural fibrosis.   The  patient is
               obese,  but patients  with  obesity alone  rarely  have
               restrictive  pulmonary  function.   As  I  have  stated
               before, I think his pleural fibrosis  is related to his
               employment at Bath Iron Works.  . . . [H]is symptoms of
               shortness  of   breath  and  restricted   activity  are
               significantly   contributed   to    by   his   physical
               deconditioning and obesity.

               Another physician, Dr. Schmidt, reviewed claimant's June 11,

          1982  pulmonary function studies  and concluded that  they showed

          "restrictive  lung   disease  and   minimal  obstructive   airway

          disease."   He  also reported  that claimant's  January  20, 1983

          pulmonary  function  studies   showed  "mild  obstructive  airway

          disease," which "appears to be new since June, 1982."

               In  1986  claimant, for  the  first time,  was  diagnosed as

          permanently partially disabled as a  result of asbestosis.  It is

          undisputed  that  claimant  was  twenty-five  percent   partially

          disabled at that time.  No finding was made as to  what amount of

          this disability was specifically attributable to asbestosis or to

          any other kind of pulmonary impairment.

                                         -6-

                        ENTITLEMENT TO SECTION 8(f) RELIEF -- 
            PERMANENT TOTAL AND PARTIAL DISABILITY CRITERIA DISTINGUISHED

               We  review the  Board's  decision for  errors  of law,9  and

          examine the record  to determine whether  the ALJ's findings  are

          supported by  substantial evidence.   33 U.S.C.    921(b)(3); CNA
                                                                        ___

          Insurance Co. v. Legrow, 935 F.2d 430, 434 (1st Cir. 1991).    
          _____________    ______

               This appeal raises  numerous complex  issues concerning  the

          application  of  Section 8(f).    We  believe  this case  can  be

          resolved on  a fairly straightforward  basis not requiring  us to

          consider many of  the issues  raised on  appeal.   As we  discuss

          below,  unless  the  employer  establishes  that  the  employee's

          compensable permanent  partial  disability  was  "materially  and

          substantially  greater"  as a  result  of a  prior  disability, a

          Section 8(f) award is unavailable to the employer, and no further

          analysis  is required.    Because existing  case law  has largely

          ignored  the  clear  threshold  requirements  of  Section   8(f),

          however,  we  think  it helpful  to  clarify  certain preliminary

          issues in the  Section 8(f) framework.  We  choose, therefore, to

          review in detail the initial steps that must be met to support an

          award of Section  8(f) relief, up to and  including consideration

          of the "materially and substantially greater" standard; we do not

          consider issues  raised on appeal that go  beyond these threshold

          requirements.  
                              
          ____________________

               9    In  this case,  because the  ALJ  order is  final as  a
          result  of the Board's failure  to consider the Director's appeal
          within  one  year,  we  treat  the ALJ's  order  as  the  Board's
          decision. 

                                         -7-

               The  LHWCA provides compensation for the death or disability

          of federal maritime employees if the disability or  death results

          from  a work-related  injury.   Under  what has  been termed  the

          "aggravation rule,"  the LHWCA  requires an  employer to  provide

          full coverage for a worker's job-related disability even when the

          disability resulted from some combination of a current employment

          injury  and a pre-existing  condition.  Ceres  Marine Terminal v.
                                                  ______________________

          Director, OWCP, 118 F.3d 387,  389 (5th Cir. 1997).  In  response
          ______________

          to concern  that this "aggravation rule" would  give the employer

          an incentive  to discriminate against partially  disabled workers

          based on a fear of increased liability, Congress  enacted Section

          8(f).  Id.;  see also CNA, 935  F.2d at 435 (explaining  that the
                 ___   ___ ____ ___

          statute was aimed at encouraging employers to hire or continue to

          employ  handicapped   workers  by   limiting   liability  for   a

          subsequently incurred  permanent partial  disability attributable

          in part to a previously existing handicap).  

               Section 8(f) provides in relevant part:

               (f)  Injury increasing disability:
               (1)  In . . . cases of total permanent disability . . .
               found  not to  be  due  solely to  that  injury, of  an
               employee   having   an   existing   permanent   partial
               disability,   the  employer   shall   provide  .   .  .
               compensation  payments . .  . for one  hundred and four
               weeks only. . . . 
                    In  .  . .  cases  in  which  the employee  has  a
               permanent  partial disability,  found  not  to  be  due
               solely   to  that  injury,   and  such   disability  is
               materially and  substantially greater  than that  which
               would have  resulted from the  subsequent injury alone,
               the employer shall provide  . . . compensation  for one
               hundred and four weeks only.

          33 U.S.C.   908(f)(1).

                                         -8-

               The employer carries  the burden to prove  that the elements

          of Section 8(f) are met.  See Director, OWCP v. Edward Minte Co.,
                                    ___ ______________    _________________

          Inc.,  803 F.2d  731, 737  (D.C.  Cir. 1986);  Director, OWCP  v.
          ____                                           ______________

          Newport News Shipbuilding  & Dry Dock Co., 676 F.2d 110, 115 (4th
          _________________________________________

          Cir. 1982).  

               To  qualify  for  the  limitation  on  full  liability,  the

          employer therefore must  prove that the claimant had  a permanent

          partial disability within  the meaning of Section  8(f), and that

          the condition existed prior to  the work-related injury.  We have

          described the standard for "disability" under Section 8(f) as "[a

          condition]  serious enough to motivate a cautious employer either

          not to hire or [to]  fire [the] employee because of  the 'greatly

          increased   risk   of   [an]  employment-related   accident   and

          compensation liability.'"  CNA, 935 F.2d at 435.  Thus,  a person
                                     ___

          may be  found to  suffer from a  pre-existing disability  even if

          able  to  work full  time in  the identical  position.   The pre-

          existing  disability must,  however, be  a  "condition," and  not

          merely an unhealthy behavior  likely to lead to a condition.  See
                                                                        ___

          General Dynamics Corp. v. Sacchetti,  681 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1982)
          ______________________    _________

          (finding  that an employee's habit of  smoking moderately for ten

          years prior to  developing asbestosis as a result  of exposure at

          work  did not  constitute a  qualifying  prior permanent  partial

          disability so as to  limit an employer's liability under  Section

          8(f)).    To qualify  as pre-existing,  the condition  must exist

          before  the  work-related   injury;  a  disability  that   occurs

          simultaneously will  not meet  the requirement.   See  Fineman v.
                                                            ___  _______

                                         -9-

          Newport  News Shipbuilding  & Dry  Dock Co.,  27 BRBS  104 (1993)
          ___________________________________________

          (citing Newport News  Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.  v. Harris, 934
                  _________________________________________     ______

          F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1991)).  

               Once  the employer  establishes  that  the  employee  had  a

          qualifying pre-existing disability, the scope of  the compensable

          injury must  be considered.   Although most cases have  failed to

          acknowledge  the differing standards, the proper analysis at this

          point  turns on  whether  the  employee suffers  from  a full  or

          partial disability.   

               In cases where the employee  is fully disabled, the employer

          must  show that  the  disability is  not due  solely to  the most

          recent injury.  E.P. Paup  Co. v. Director, OWCP, 999  F.2d 1341,
                          ______________    ______________

          1352 (9th Cir. 1993); Todd  Pacific Shipyards Corp. v.  Director,
                                _____________________________     _________

          OWCP,  913  F.2d 1426,  1429  (9th Cir.  1990).    "Thus, if  the
          ____

          employment  injury  was  sufficient,  by  itself,  to  cause  the

          claimant's  total permanent  disability, the  employer should  be

          liable for the entire compensation  award and section 8(f) relief

          should be denied.   The aggravation rule that  [S]ection 8(f) was

          intended   to  counteract  never  comes  into  play  under  these

          circumstances because  the employer would  be liable to  the same

          extent  if an  able-bodied employee  suffered  the same  injury."

          Ceres  Marine, 118 F.3d at 390.   The employer cannot satisfy the
          _____________

          Section 8(f) standard merely by demonstrating that the employee's

          pre-existing  injury  compounded his  employment-related  injury;

          rather,  the  employer  must  show  that,  but  for  pre-existing

                                         -10-

          disability,  claimant would  be employable.    Director, OWCP  v.
                                                         ______________

          Jaffe New York Decorating, 25 F.3d 1080, 1085 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
          _________________________

               In  cases  where  the employee  is  partially  disabled, the

          employer  must show that the current permanent partial disability

          "is  materially and substantially  greater than that  which would

          have resulted  from the  subsequent injury alone."   33  U.S.C.  

          908(f);  Metropolitan Stevedore Co.  v. Rambo, 515  U.S. 291, 293
                   __________________________     _____

          (1995); Director, OWCP v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., --- F.3d --
                  ______________    __________________________

          -, 1997 WL 612743, *4 (5th Cir. 1997).

               A  "heavier burden"  is  placed on  the  employer to  obtain

          Section 8(f)  relief  in  the  case of  a  permanently  partially

          disabled employee than in the  case of a fully disabled employee.

          Director,  OWCP  v.  Newport  News Shipbuilding  &  Dry  Dock Co.
          _______________      ____________________________________________

          ("Newport News"),10  8 F.3d  175, 185 (4th  Cir. 1993),  aff'd on
            ____________                                           ________

          other grounds, 514 U.S. 122  (1995) (citing Two "R" Drilling Co.,
          _____________                               _____________________

          Inc. v.  Director, OWCP, 894 F.2d 748, 750  (5th Cir. 1990)).  In
          ____     ______________

          Newport News, the court stated:
          ____________

               To  satisfy  this additional  prong, the  employer must
               show by medical evidence or otherwise that the ultimate
               permanent    partial    disability    materially    and
               substantially exceeds  the disability as it  would have
               resulted from the work-related injury alone.  A showing
               of  this kind requires  quantification of the  level of
               impairment  that  would  ensue  from  the  work-related
               injury alone.  In other words, an employer must present
               evidence of the type and extent of  disability that the
               claimant  would suffer if  not previously disabled when
               injured  by the  same work-related  injury.   Once  the
               employer  establishes the  level  of disability  in the
               absence of a pre-existing permanent partial disability,
                              
          ____________________

               10   Our opinion cites  a number of cases  involving Newport
          News  Shipbuilding &  Dry Dock  Co.   The abbreviation,  "Newport
                                                                    _______
          News," refers only to this Fourth Circuit case.
          ____

                                         -11-

               an  adjudicative body  will have  a basis  on which  to
               determine  whether   the  ultimate   permanent  partial
               disability is materially and substantially greater.

          8 F.3d at 185-86; see also Ingalls, 1997 WL 612743, *4.  Thus, an
                            ___ ____ _______

          employer  is   required  to   show  the   degree  of   disability

          attributable to  the work-related injury, so that this amount may

          be compared to the total percentage of the partial disability for

          which coverage under the LHWCA is sought.

               The court in Newport News specifically rejected the argument
                            ____________

          that  an  employer  need  only  show  medical  evidence  that   a

          percentage  of whole  body impairment  existed  before the  work-

          related  injury,  that   a  greater  percentage  of   whole  body

          impairment exists  after the  work-related injury,  and that  the

          ultimate permanent  partial disability was  causally connected to

          the earlier  impairment to satisfy its burden of the contribution

          element: 

               [Such  a]  showing  eviscerates  the  requirement  from
               section  8(f)  that  the   ultimate  permanent  partial
               disability be materially and substantially greater than
               a disability from  the work-related injury  alone would
               be,  by  overlooking  the  possibility that  the  work-
               related  injury alone  could cause  virtually  the same
               level  of disability as that manifested in the ultimate
               permanent partial  disability through  the contribution
               of the pre-existing permanent partial disability.  

          8 F.3d at 184.

               Despite  the clear statutory  language of Section  8(f), and

          despite cases such as  Newport News and Ingalls, emphasizing  the
                                 ____________     _______

          need  to meet the "materially and substantially greater" standard

          in partial disability  cases, some cases have permitted  a looser

          contribution finding, or have failed  to consider the standard at

                                         -12-

          all.  See, e.g., Skelton v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 27 BRBS 28, *2
                ___  ____  _______    _____________________

          (1993) (stating  that the  Section 8(f)  contribution requirement

          may be  met by  a showing "that  the pre-existing  disability was

          aggravated by claimant's  subsequent employment.").   However,  a

          finding  that  a  claimant's  permanent  physical  impairment  is

          greater as  a result of  the combination of the  pre-existing and

          work-related  injuries is clearly insufficient to satisfy Section

          8(f).  See Newport News, 8 F.3d at 184-85.   Failure to apply the
                 ___ ____________

          statutory  criteria  of  "materially  and substantially  greater"

          constitutes error.

                          BIW'S SECTION 8(f) BURDEN APPLIED

                        I.  The ALJ's Findings and Conclusions
                            __________________________________

               The  ALJ defined  the essential  elements  for Section  8(f)

          relief  as:    "(1) the  employee  had  a pre-existing  permanent

          partial  disability, (2) which was manifest to the employer prior

          to the subsequent compensable injury, and (3) which combined with

          the  subsequent  injury  to produce  or  increase  the employee's

          permanent  total or partial disability, a disability greater than

          that resulting from the first  injury alone."  In concluding that

          BIW met these elements, the ALJ relied on the following:

               The record  reflects  . .  .  (2) that  [claimant]  has
               experienced shortness of breath  and pulmonary problems
               since  at least  May of 1978  as he was  required to be
               examined  by  Dr.  Schall for  pre-operative  clearance
               prior to knee  surgery, (3) that  he has suffered  from
               obesity  and hypertension for  many years, (4)  that he
               had a long history of cigarette smoking, i.e., at least
               1  to 3  packs  per day  for  forty years,  a  habit he
               stopped in  1978, (5) that  Claimant's asbestos-related
               disease was first reported on his chest x-rays in April

                                         -13-

               of  1982, .  .  . (7)  that  his subsequent  diagnostic
               tests, including  pulmonary function  tests, showed  an
               increase  of   his  asbestos-related   disease  and   a
               worsening  of his  shortness of  breath,  (8) that  Dr.
               Schall,  as of December 5, 1983, opined that Claimant's
               pulmonary impairment was  due to "a mixture  of chronic
               obstructive pulmonary disease  and asbestosis with some
               restrictive  component," (9)  that Claimant's  "chronic
               obstructive  pulmonary disease is far more risky to him
               and  is  (in) a  further  advanced  state than  is  his
               asbestosis," (10) that he "has the concomitant problems
               of    obesity,    chronic   alcoholism    and    severe
               osteoarthritis of  his  knees," .  .  . (12)  that  the
               doctors  are  in  agreement  that Claimant's  permanent
               partial impairment  is due  to the  combination of  his
               asbestos-related  disease,  i.e., his  asbestosis,  his
               hypertension,   his  obesity,   his  cardiac   problems
               diagnosed  as ischemic  heart  disease, (13)  that  the
               doctors reiterated their opinions at their post-hearing
               depositions   .  .  .  ,  [and]  (14)  that  Claimant's
               permanent disability is  the result of the  combination
               of his pre-existing  permanent partial disability (i.e.
               his pulmonary problems since at least May 18, 1978, his
               chronic obesity, his chronic hypertension, his  cardiac
               problems  and his cigarette  smoking habit of  at least
               100 pack years and as  high as 120 pack years) and  his
               work-related asbestosis  . .  . [.   His]  pre-existing
               disability,  in combination  with  the subsequent  work
               injury,  has  contributed  to   a  greater  degree   of
               permanent disability,  according  to  Dr.  Schall,  Dr.
               Corbin and Dr. Killian.  (citations to record omitted).

          The  ALJ  concluded  from  the evidence  that  claimant  fit  the

          category  of person  that Section 8(f)  was designed  to protect:

          "Claimant's  condition, prior  to  his injury  in  1986, was  the

          classic  condition  of  a  high-risk  employee  whom  a  cautious

          employer would neither  have hired nor retained in employment due

          to the increased likelihood that  such an employee would  sustain

          another occupational injury." 

                                         -14-

               Other than what is included in a citation from another case,

          quoted  for  a  different  proposition,11  the  ALJ  in no  place

          mentions  the Section 8(f) requirement,  or makes a finding, that

          the ultimate permanent disability is materially and substantially

          greater  as  a  result of  the  preexisting  disability  than the

          disability which would  have resulted from the  subsequent injury

          alone.

            II.  The Missing Assessment: the ALJ Opinion and the Record  
                 ______________________________________________________

               Under the  LHWCA, Johnson's  compensable injury  occurred in

          1986, when he was diagnosed  with a twenty-five percent permanent

          disability resulting from asbestosis.12  Therefore, only the non-
                              
          ____________________

               11   At the conclusion of the order, the ALJ quoted Adams v.
                                                                   _____
          Newport News,  22 BRBS  78, 85 (1989),  for the  proposition that
          ____________
          only  pulmonary  problems  were  relevant  to  the  Section  8(f)
          determination; physical  problems relating to  other impairments,
          such  as claimant's knee injury, could not be considered.  In the
          section  of Adams  quoted  by  the ALJ,  the  Board mentions  the
                      _____
          "materially  and substantially greater"  requirement only as part
          of its  general  explanation that this standard  must be met by a
          pre-existing  disability that impacts  the same type  of physical
          functioning as does the work-related injury.

               12   In  long-latency  disease  cases,  such as  asbestosis,
          using the date of last exposure as the relevant time of injury is
          inappropriate  because the  injury arises  years  later when  the
          disease manifests  itself.  See Bath Iron  Works Co., 506 U.S. at
                                      ___ ____________________
          163.  Therefore, while not  determinative of our finding, we note
          here  the applicable  date for  time of  injury is the  date that
          claimant  was diagnosed  with --  and thus  became aware  that he
          suffered  from  --   a  twenty-five  percent  permanent   partial
          disability  resulting from asbestosis.   See Harris,  934 F.2d at
                                                   ___ ______
          553 (stating that "the time of injury is deemed to be the date on
          which the employee or claimant  becomes aware, or in the exercise
          of reasonable  diligence or  by reason  of medical  advice should
          have been aware, of the relationship  between the employment, the
          disease, and the death or  disability," citing 33 U.S.C.   910(i)
          and noting,  "[s]ince the issue before the  court is how long the
          employer is going to have to pay  the amount determined to be due
          under [Section 910],  it necessarily follows that  the definition
          of time of injury found therein would be used for the purposes of

                                         -15-

          asbestosis-related pulmonary disability that he suffered prior to

          1986 is relevant to our Section 8(f) analysis.

               Claimant   suffered  from   pulmonary  problems,   including

          obstructive pulmonary conditions  unrelated to asbestos prior  to

          1986.   The  evidence in  the medical  record supports  the ALJ's

          conclusion that  these problems, probably  resulting from obesity

          and  smoking, amounted to  "the classic condition  of a high-risk

          employee whom  a cautious employer  would neither have  hired nor

          retained in employment due to the increased likelihood that  such

          an employee would  sustain another occupational disease."   While

          we need not  reach this issue to conclude this case, we note here

          that  we agree  with  the  ALJ's finding  that  claimant met  the

          Section  8(f) criteria of suffering from a pre-existing permanent

          disability prior to his work-related injury. 

               To  be  entitled to  Section 8(f)  relief, however,  BIW was

          required to  carry the  burden of  demonstrating that  claimant's

          twenty-five percent  disability was materially  and substantially

          greater  than that  which would have  resulted from  the asbestos

          exposure alone.  To do this, BIW was required to show  the degree

          of  disability attributable only  to claimant's asbestosis.   See
                                                                        ___

          Newport  News, 8  F.3d  at 185-86.   Then,  the  ALJ should  have
          _____________

          compared  this information  with  claimant's twenty-five  percent

          disability to determine whether the "materially and substantially

          greater" standard had been met.  See id.
                                           ___ ___

                              
          ____________________

          Section 8(f)."). 

                                         -16-

               The ALJ,  however, made no  such determination.   He neither

          discussed  the statutory requirement, nor applied it in analyzing

          the facts of this case.

               Further,   the  ALJ  lacked   the  evidence  to   apply  the

          "materially  and  substantially  greater"  standard  even had  he

          chosen  to  do  so.   No  evidence of  the  degree  of disability

          attributable  only to  claimant's asbestosis was  ever presented.

          Nor  can such  disability  be deduced  from  the medical  records

          relating to  claimant's non-asbestos-related  injury.   While Dr.

          Schall did state  that the non-related asbestos  lung disease was

          in  a  further  advanced state  than  claimant's  asbestosis, Dr.

          Schall made this diagnosis in  1983.  At that time,  claimant was

          not  disabled  as a  result  of  pulmonary  impairment.   A  1983

          assessment,  therefore, could not  establish the degree  to which

          claimant's 1986  compensable injury  was impacted  by an  earlier

          existing  non-asbestos-related  disability.     Dr.  Killian,  in

          reporting  on  claimant's  condition   in  1986,  concluded  that

          claimant's prior  non-asbestos-related disability  contributed to

          claimant's overall disability.  But  he gave no indication of how

          much  contribution existed,  and included  in  his assessment  of

          claimant's "overall disability"  claimant's knee problems,  which

          cannot properly form  part of a Section 8(f)  determination.  Dr.

          Corbin provides the best evidence for BIW, stating, in 1987, that

          claimant's  "symptoms  of  shortness  of  breath  and  restricted

          activity  are  significantly  contributed  to   by  his  physical

          deconditioning and obesity."  However,  even this report fails to

                                         -17-

          meet  the  required standard.    Dr.  Corbin provides  a  general

          statement  that includes claimant's shortness of breath and spans

          his  "restricted activity."   The  report does  not  indicate the

          extent to which claimant's pre-existing  condition contributed to

          his  permanent   partial  disability,  the   twenty-five  percent

          pulmonary impairment for which condition alone claimant  received

          compensation under the LHWCA. 

               Therefore, there being neither sufficient direct evidence of

          the contribution  of asbestosis  to claimant's  overall permanent

          partial disability  nor a  basis for  deducing such  contribution

          from the contribution attributable to the pre-existing condition,

          BIW has failed to carry its considerable burden.

                                         -18-

                                      CONCLUSION

               Because we  determine that the  ALJ failed to find,  and the

          record contains  insufficient evidence  to show,  that claimant's

          current   permanent   partial   disability  is   materially   and

          substantially  greater than that  which would have  resulted from

          asbestosis alone, we do  not address the remaining  issues raised

          by appellant.  For the  reasons discussed, we reverse the Section

          8(f) award to BIW. 

            

                                         -19-