Transocean Terminal, et al v. Berry, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 00-60379
Summary Calendar
_______________
TRANSOCEAN TERMINAL OPERATORS
AND
SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, LTD.,
Petitioners,
VERSUS
CHARLES BERRY,
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
_________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision
of the Benefits Review Board
(99-796)
_________________________
January 5, 2001
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DENNIS,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Transocean Terminal Operators (“Trans-
ocean”) and Signal Mutual Indemnity
Association, Inc. (“Signal”), petition for
review of an order o f the Benefits Review
Board (“BRB”) awardi ng disability
compensation benefits. Concluding that the
* 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determined that this opinion should not be published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
(continued...)
*(...continued)
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
decision of the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) is supported by substantial evidence,
we deny the petition for review and affirm the
decision of the BRB.
I.
The disability award was made pursuant to
a claim under the Longshore and Harbor
Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901
et seq. Charles Berry suffered dehydration and
acute renal failure while working as a freight
handler for Transocean. The parties were
unable to resolve the claim administratively,
and after a formal hearing the ALJ found that
Berry’s disability became permanent partial as
of October 28, 1996, the date on which Berry
reached maximum medical improvement. This
status enables him to receive disability
compensation benefits.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Transocean
filed a motion for reconsideration. In denying
the motion, the ALJ stressed that “[e]very
scintilla of evidence in th[e] matter was
thoroughly and cautiously analyzed, discussed
and accorded the weight and credit it
deserved.” The ALJ was unpersuaded that the
testimony of Dr. Epsenan, the medical expert
offered by Transocean, warranted greater
probative weight than did that of Dr. Mims, a
nephrologist whom saw Berry multiple times,
or of Dr. Vorhoff, Berry’s treating physician.
Transocean appealed to the BRB, which
affirmed, finding that the ALJ had provided an
“extensive and rational explanation” for why
Mims’s and Vorhoff’s opinions were credited
over Epsenan’s and why Berry’s injury was
properly classified as permanent.
II.
We review decisions of the BRB using the
same standard the BRB applies to review a de-
cision of the ALJ: whether the decision is sup-
ported by substantial evidence and is in
accordance with law. New Thoughts Finishing
Co. v. Chilton, 118 F.3d 1028, 1030 (5th Cir.
1997). Thus, neither the BRB nor this court
has authority to engage in a de novo review of
the evidence or to substitute its views for
those of the ALJ. Banks v. Chicago Grain
Trimmers Ass’n, 390 U.S. 459 (1968); Cal-
beck v. Strachan Shipping Co., 306 F.2d 693
(5th Cir. 1962).
That the facts may permit diverse inferences
is immaterial. Presley v. Tinsley Maintenance
Serv., 529 F.2d 433 (5th Cir. 1976). Rather,
the findings of the ALJ must be accepted
unless unsupported by substantial evidence in
the record considered as a whole, O'Leary v.
Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504,
508 (1951), or unless they are irrational,
O'Keeffe v. Smith Assocs., 380 U.S. 359, 362
(1965). This standard applies because it is the
ALJ who alone is charged with selecting the
inference that seems most reasonable.
Cardillo v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 330 U.S.
469 (1947). Moreover, we must resolve all
doubts “in favor of the employee in
accordance with the remedial purposes of the
LHWCA.” Empire United Stevedores v. Gat-
lin, 936 F.2d 819, 822 (5th Cir. 1991).
Transocean nonetheless asks us to reweigh
the evidence and find that Espenan’s testimony
is dispositive. We decline to do so. The BRB
found that the ALJ had “provided an extensive
and rational explanation for crediting the
opinions of Drs. Mims and Vorhoff to find
claimant suffered from acute renal failure in
1996 and could not return to his usual work.”
The ALJ’s reasoning was transparent and
explicit in his twenty-three page decision. This
reasoning was reiterated in his order denying

-- 2 of 3 --

3
reconsideration.
Whether Berry’s non-work related high
blood pressure or his working conditions were
a greater cause of his episode of acute
dehydration was a question of fact that the
ALJ found in Berry’s favor. The ALJ’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence,
and we will not replace it with our own.
The petition for review is DENIED, and the
decision of the BRB, affirming the decision of
the ALJ, is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --