Substantial Evidence and Overcoming the § 920 Presumption
Substantial Evidence and Overcoming the § 920 Presumption
By: Brooke Michiels
Edited by: Molly MacKenzie
Hymel v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, 575 Fed. Appx. 400 (5th Cir. 2014).
Matthew Hymel was working in a warehouse owned by Pacorini Global Services when a forklift driven by a coworker allegedly came into contact with him, causing an injury. He sought relief under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (herein “LHWCA”). After making a prima facie claim that the claimant suffered harm and that conditions existed at work, or an accident occurred at work, that could have caused, aggravated, or accelerated the claimant’s injured condition, it is presumed under Section 920 of the LHWCA (33 U.S.C. § 920) that the claim falls within the purview of the Act, absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The burden then shifts to the employer to rebut that presumption by providing “substantial evidence” to establish the lack of any connection between the injury and the workplace. If the employer successfully rebuts this presumption, causation must then be decided by considering the totality of the evidence.During a formal hearing in front of the Office of Administrative Law Judges (herein “ALJ”), the ALJ found that Hymel established a prima facia claim and, in turn, that the respondents successfully rebutted the § 920 presumption by producing substantial evidence. After weighing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ concluded that Hymel failed to prove causation because he was unable to show that an accident occurred in the workplace. The ALJ came to the conclusion that the credibility of Hymel’s testimony was questionable due to several inconsistencies with statements from the alleged eyewitnesses and the alleged forklift operator, including conflicts regarding the date of the incident. Hymel appealed to the Benefits Review Board, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit then reviewed the Benefits Review Board’s decision for errors of law.Hymel specifically challenged three of the ALJ’s findings: (1) that failing to tell his physician of a previous fall had affected his physician’s ability to make an accurate diagnosis, (2) that his description of the incident was inconsistent with his coworker’s description, and (3) the ALJ’s admission of gangsheets and payroll records into evidence. The Court of Appeals determined that all three of Hymel’s claims were meritless. First, the court pointed out that Hymel’s physician stated that he would have given a different diagnosis had he known of the previous fall. Second, the court focused on the many inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements rather than addressing the particular one that Hymel wished to single out. In weighing these inconsistencies, the ALJ made credibility determinations based on the evidence provided to it, and the Court of Appeals refused to disrupt that determination. Third, the ALJ is not bound by formal rules of evidence and is allowed to take into account any evidence that a reasonable mind would consider probative. Four witnesses testified that the evidence in question was accurate and reliable; Hymel himself even attempted to use the payroll records to determine the date of the alleged accident. Further, the court noted that the coworkers’ testimony denying any involvement in Hymel’s injury stood on its own in support of the Employer/Carrier argument.
