Court Opinion

ID: 9470321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:02:26.524149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:50.342739
License: Public Domain

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Alphonso Lira came to this employment not as an addict, but as a former addict with low tolerance for pain and a high resistance to drug relief. While working he suffered a bad fall which ruptured an inter-vertebral disc. A painful operation was performed on him. He told no falsehood to the doctor or to the hospital, but — as could be expected of a person under the same circumstances, according to the medical evidence — he did not volunteer the information of his prior addiction for fear he would be deprived of treatment and relief from excruciating pain. The medication eventually wore down his resistance and he became readdicted. This record establishes conclusively that the readdiction was the natural result of all of the factors, the injury and resulting pain being critical parts of that causation.
Lira did not intervene into that causal chain; he failed to intervene. He did not choose readdiction. He made no deliberate, intentional misrepresentation, contrary to what the panel opinion says and his own remorseful characterization of what he did. He is being faulted for the lack of foresight and knowledge and strength which would have enabled him to intervene and stop the normal treatment for pain. He erred. He grabbed for help and it cost him. But under his circumstances, this was far from unexcused and deliberate misconduct.
I would affirm the order of the Benefits Review Board.