Stewart v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

Case: 13-60509 Document: 00512495280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 13-60509
FILED
January 9, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
ALVIN STEWART,
Petitioner
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; TIGRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL & DOCKSIDE SERVICES; LOUISIANA WORKERS’
COMPENSATION CORPORATION,
Respondents
Petition for Review from the
Benefits Review Board
BRB No. 12-0425
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alvin Stewart petitions for review of an adverse decision by the Benefits
Review Board (“BRB”) regarding his Longshore and Harbor Workers’
Compensation Act claim. However, the only issue he briefs pertains to Dr.
Bernard, to whom Stewart was sent for an independent evaluation after
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-60509 Document: 00512495280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2014
No. 13-60509
Stewart’s doctor and the employer’s doctors disagreed regarding causation of
Stewart’s back problems. Stewart contends that Dr. Bernard is biased such
that his opinions should have been discounted by the Administrative Law
Judge and the BRB.
The BRB concluded that it did not need to address the issue of Dr.
Bernard’s alleged partiality: “Because [the treating physician] did not relate
claimant’s continuing back problems to his work injury, claimant has not met
his burden of establishing that his back condition is work-related. Therefore
it is not necessary to address claimant’s allegations with respect to Dr.
Bernard’s alleged partiality.” A.S. v. Tigress Envtl. & Dockside Servs., BRB
No. 12-0425, 2013 WL 2472385, at *3 (DoL Ben. Rev. Bd. May 29, 2013).
Stewart has wholly failed to address the basis for the BRB’s ruling and, thus,
has abandoned the only relevant issue before this court. See United States v.
Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006) (“Inadequately briefed issues are
deemed abandoned.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2