Court Opinion

ID: 9364933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 18:00:37.905226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.410790
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALLEN B. FLORES,                                 No. 20-71297

                Petitioner,                      LABR No. BRB No. 19-0386

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
PACIFIC CRANE MAINTENANCE
COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS,

                Respondents.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                               Department of Labor

                              Submitted January 18, 2023**
                                San Francisco, California

Before:      HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Allen B. Flores seeks review of the Benefit Review Board’s (BRB) order

affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision denying Flores’s claim

for medical benefits and disability compensation pursuant to the Longshore and

Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. We review BRB decisions for errors of law

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
and for adherence to the substantial evidence standard, which governs the BRB’s

review of an ALJ’s factual determinations. Kalama Servs., Inc. v. Dir., Off. of

Workers’ Comp. Programs, 354 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2004). We do not

consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening

brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett

v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). We have

jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c), and we affirm.

      The BRB did not err in affirming the ALJ’s finding that Flores was not a

credible witness because the ALJ’s credibility determination did not “conflict with

the clear preponderance of the evidence,” nor was it “inherently incredible or

patently unreasonable.” Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. Ogawa, 608 F.3d 642, 648 (9th

Cir. 2010) (quoting Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp.

Programs, 914 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir. 1990)). The BRB did not err in affirming

the ALJ’s conclusion that Flores failed to establish that any of his injuries were

work-related because the ALJ’s findings as to each injury were supported by

substantial evidence. See Ogawa, 608 F.3d at 648 (“The BRB must accept the

ALJ’s findings unless they are contrary to the law, irrational, or unsupported by

substantial evidence.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Duhagon v.

Metro. Stevedore Co., 169 F.3d 615, 618 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (“It is within

the ALJ’s prerogative, as finder of fact, to credit one witness’s testimony over that

                                          2
of another.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                  3