Substantial Evidence: “More Than A Scintilla, But Less Than A Preponderance”

Substantial Evidence: “More Than A Scintilla, But Less Than A Preponderance”

Written By: Lisa M. Grose

Edited By: Andrew Lifsey

Ramsay Scarlett & Co. v. Dir., No. 15-60112, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19733, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2015); 2015 WL 7074265, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2015).

Ferdinand Fabre was diagnosed with asbestosis in 2011. He worked for Ramsay Scarlett (Ramsay) from 1969-1991 and then at Westway from 1991-2013. Fabre alleges he was exposed to asbestos while changing brakes and clutches at the Port of Baton Rouge facility owned by Ramsay, which led to his claim under the Longshore Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act. Through plaintiff and expert testimony, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Fabre had established a prima facie case and held the evidence supported the finding that Ramsay was liable for all “reasonable and necessary medical expenses arising out of [the] work-related occupational disease.On appeal from the Benefits Review Board (BRB), Ramsay argued there was insufficient “substantial evidence to establish that Fabre[’s] . . . exposure[]” occurred at their Port of Baton Rouge facility. The burden of proving a prima facie case “that he suffered a harm that a workplace condition could have caused or aggravated” is low. The testimony of two or more people is usually enough to present more than a scintilla of evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” The ALJ held that Ramsay did not rebut the presumption given to Fabre’s prima facie case by presenting “substantial evidence to the contrary” or “factual doubt” that the “working conditions of the Port of Baton Rouge caused Fabre’s asbestosis,” or the “causal link between asbestos exposure and [his] respiratory infections.” The court affirmed the ALJ and the BRB, holding that Ramsay was liable for Fabre’s claims.