Wade v. Avondale Industries ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60457
Summary Calendar
L.C. WADE JR.,
Petitioner,
versus
AVONDALE INDUSTRIES, INC.; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Benefits Review Board
BRB No. 98-1229
--------------------
May 10, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Contending that he suffered shoulder and neck injuries in
addition to damages to his finger subsequent to an accident at
work, L. C. Wade Jr. petitions this Court for review of the
decision by the Department of Labor’s Benefits Review Board
(BRB), wherein it affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ)
determination that any injury sustained to petitioner’s shoulders
or neck was not causally related to the work-related incident
that led to his initial claim for benefits.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-60457
-2-
The incident that initially gave rise to this appeal
occurred on February 29, 1996. Petitioner, a shipfitter,
suffered a crush injury to his left index finger, during the
course of his employment with Avondale Industries, Inc. When
petitioner sought first-aid assistance for his injury he was
screened for illicit drug use, as is routine following a work-
related accident. Subsequent to treatment, which included
surgery to repair his finger, petitioner was released to return
to his usual job duties on July 15, 1996. Instead of being
reinstated, however, petitioner was terminated for a violation of
the company’s drug policy that was detected by the routine drug
screening.
Petitioner initiated a claim against his employer under the
Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C.
§ 901 et seq, for compensation for temporary total disability, as
well as for reasonable and necessary medical expenses, related to
a neck and shoulder condition he allegedly developed as a result
of the crush injury.1 However, on June 9, 1998, the ALJ
concluded that petitioner had failed to establish a causal
relationship between the accident and his neck and shoulder
condition, in light of the record developed at trial. Petitioner
subsequently appealed the ALJ’s decision to the BRB, which
affirmed the decision in writing, on May 17, 1999. Petitioner
now seeks review in this Court.
1
Petitioner received temporary total disability compensation
from February 29 to July 15, 1996, and an award under the
schedule for a 44 percent impairment to his index finger, as well
as related medical benefits, as a result of the injury to his
finger.
No. 98-60457
-3-
“We review decisions of the BRB for errors of law and adhere
to the substantial evidence standard that governs the BRB’s
review of the ALJ’s factual determinations.” P & M Crane Co. v.
Hayes, 930 F.2d 424, 428 (5th Cir. 1991). “We must affirm the
BRB’s decision ‘if it correctly concluded that the ALJ’s findings
are supported by substantial evidence and are in accordance with
the law.’” Mendoza v. Marine Personnel Co., 46 F.3d 498, 500 (5th
Cir. 1995) (quoting P & M Crane, 930 F.2d at 428).
We have reviewed carefully the record and the briefs, and we
conclude that the ALJ’s rulings are supported by substantial
evidence. As we typically defer to the ALJ’s credibility choices
between conflicting evidence and witnesses, see Calbeck v.
Strachan Shipping Co., 306 F.2d 693, 695 (5th Cir. 1962), we will
not disturb the ALJ’s decision to credit the doctor presented by
Avondale over the doctor presented by petitioner at the hearing.
Accordingly, the petition is
DENIED.