“Lying” Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act: Can credibility kill a claim under LHWCA?

 “Lying” Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act: Can credibility kill a claim under LHWCA?

By: Patrick Gabb

Edited By: Brooke E. Michiels

 Bis Salamis, Inc. v. Joseph Meeks, No. 15-60148, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4927; 2016 WL 1077125 (5th Cir. March 17, 2016).In 2009, Joseph Meeks worked as a sandblaster and painter on offshore rigs for Bis Salamis (“Salamis”). On April 9, 2010, Meeks was involved in an accident that occurred while being transferred from an oil rig to a vessel. The parties disagreed on the exact details of the accident; however, each party agreed that the “personnel basket” transporting Meeks collided into the vessel. Due to this accident, Meeks claimed injuries to his neck, back, and teeth.In May 2009, Meeks filed a claim for disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”). Salamis argued that Meeks was capable of returning to work in April 2009 after being released by Dr. Gidman. Also, Salamis claimed that they provided all the medical care and benefits to which Meeks was entitled during his treatment. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) first heard the case in June 2011 and rendered a decision in September 2011. In his September 2011 decision, the ALJ acknowledged Meeks’ symptoms were a result of his work injury; however, he found that the medical opinions were based on subjective reports provided by Meeks, whom he found to be “totally unreliable and not credible.” Furthermore, the ALJ found the surveillance videos of Meeks working around his house to be in complete contradiction of what he had reported to his doctors.After the ALJ denied compensation, Meeks appealed to the Benefits Review Board (“the Board”). The Board reversed the ALJ and remanded the case for further findings regarding Meeks’ back, neck, and teeth injuries within the LHWCA’s framework. On remand, the ALJ once again found Meeks’ statements and complaints did not carry any weight because he was found to be dishonest and unreliable. In their June 2013 decision, the ALJ found that Meeks had not shown he was disabled by the injury because his dishonesty and lack of credibility affected the medical opinions.After a second appeal, the Board in July 2014 reversed the ALJ. In its reasoning, the Board concluded that Meeks’ injuries invoked the Section 20 presumption under the LHWCA, which was not rebutted by Salamis. Therefore, the Board determined that Meeks was entitled to temporary total disability. On second remand, the ALJ awarded temporary total disability compensation beginning in December 2009, and this order was affirmed by the Board in its final decision (“February 2015 Decision”).After the Board’s final decision, Salamis appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“5th Circuit”). Salamis argued the Board erred in overturning the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits because the ALJ’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. Meeks argued that he suffered a compensable injury during the course and scope of employment, which triggered the presumption in his favor. Additionally, Meeks contended that the ALJ’s assessment of his credibility does not constitute substantial evidence to deny compensation.In its discussion, the court stated that the ALJ may accept or reject the conclusions of medical experts, especially when the ALJ’s findings is based on common sense. The court found that Meeks’ treating doctors were influenced by his dishonesty and that the Board undervalued the ALJ’s assessment of Meeks’ lack of credibility.The 5th Circuit concluded the ALJ’s determination that Meeks’ lack of credibility was supported by evidence, and thus could not establish a prima facie case based on the personnel-basket accident aggravating his preexisting condition. In conclusion, the court reversed the Board’s judgment awarding benefits to Meeks, except as to his missing tooth, and reinstated the ALJ’s June 2013 decision, except the portion denying benefits for the missing tooth.