QUITE THE DEFERENCE
Bourgeois v. Dir., O.W.C.P., 946 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2020).
By:Austin Welch
Petitioner, Tramond Bourgeois, brought a claim forbenefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”)following an injury on navigable waters. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) concludedthat the Petitioner suffered multiple injuries and ordered Fab-Con, Inc.,Bourgeois’s former employer, to pay five and a half months of disabilitybenefits.
Convinced that his injuries were far more severe,Bourgeois appealed the ALJ’s findings to the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”). TheBoard affirmed the ALJ’s decision and denied Bourgeois’s motion forreconsideration. Bourgeois then petitioned the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court ofAppeals to review the BRB decision, which subsequently was denied.
The Fifth Circuit recognized that it does reviewdecisions of the Board under the standard “whether the decision is supported bysubstantial evidence and is in accordance with the law.”[1] The court further notedthat it will affirm as long as the evidence furnishes “’a substantial basis offact from which the fact in issue can be reasonable inferred.’”[2]
Bourgeois first assigned error to the Board’s ratificationof the ALJ’s finding that he did not suffer a muscle tear in his right shoulder.Although the LHWCA provides a presumption for certain claimants that an injuryis causally related to employment, the Fifth Circuit found that the ALJ did noterr in concluding that Fab-Con, Inc.’s medical expert rebutted thispresumption. Bourgeois further argued that the ALJ was required to credit his medicalexpert’s testimony. The court rejected this argument and noted that the ALJproperly considered both medical experts and drew a conclusion that the FifthCircuit refused to disturb.
The Fifth Circuit again afforded significant deferenceto the ALJ in affirming that Bourgeois did not suffer from lumbar facetarthrosis. The Court noted that, as the factfinder, the ALJ was “’exclusivelyentitled to assess both the weight of the evidence and the credibility ofwitnesses.’”[3]
Ultimately, because the appeals court determined thatsubstantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings, it denied the petition forreview.
[1] Bourgeois v. Dir., O.W.C.P., 946 F.3d at 263 (5 Cir. 2020) citing Craven v. Dir., O.W.C.P., 604F.3d 902, 905 (5 Cir. 2010).
[2] Id. citing Diamond M. Drilling Co. v. Marshall, 577 F.2d 1003, 1006(5 Cir. 1978).
[3] Id. citing Ceres Gulf, Inc., 683 F.3d at 228.
