Bludworth Shipyard, Inc. v. Lira

• Decision Date: 21 March 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-4102,82-4102
• Citation: Bludworth Shipyard, Inc. v. Lira, 700 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir. 1983)
• Parties: BLUDWORTH SHIPYARD, INC. and Travelers Insurance Co., Petitioners, v. Alphonso LIRA and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1046

700 F.2d 1046

BLUDWORTH SHIPYARD, INC. and Travelers Insurance Co., Petitioners, v.Alphonso LIRA and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Respondents.

No. 82-4102.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 21, 1983.

G. Wesley Urquhart, and Robert J. Cunningham, Houston, Tex., for petitioners.

Stephen M. Vaughan, Houston, Tex., Joshua T. Gillelan, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Petition for Review of An Order of the Benefits Review Board.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Chief Judge:

Alphonso Lira brought this Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act claim seeking reimbursement for medical expenses allegedly precipitated by a work injury.An Administrative Law Judge denied his claim, but the Benefits Review Board reversed.Bludworth Shipyard, Inc., Lira's employer, appeals from that order.Because Lira's intentional concealment of vital information, and not an employment-related injury, was the direct cause of the injury for which compensation is sought, we reverse.

I

Lira became a heroin addict in the late 1960's.He eventually went through a methadone maintenance program that lasted more than three years.He emerged from the program physiologically independent of heroin, but he remained, to some degree, psychologically dependent on the drug.For several years he engaged in "chipping," the intermittent use of heroin.

Lira applied for a job at Bludworth Shipyard in 1976.During the application process, Lira was required to complete a medical questionnaire.Lira wrote on the questionnaire that he had never used narcotic drugs.When asked at the hearing why he lied, Lira testified that he did not think he would get the job if he told the truth.

Bludworth employed Lira as a welder.He was never reprimanded for drug use by Bludworth.He repeatedly testified that he was too occupied in his new job to use any heroin after he started working:

When I started working for Bludworth it was hard work, and I got so occupied in it I don't think I used any if I am not mistaken while I was there.Before that, I did.But during that time at Bludworth, it was a good job and it kept me busy and kept my mind occupied.I had no desire then.

During cross-examination the following exchange took place:

Q: I think you testified you did not use heroin after going to work for Bludworth.

A: Right.

Q: Not even once?

A: Not even once that I remember.

Q: Okay.Let me stop you right there.You are saying sometimes you may have used heroin and you don't remember about it?

A: I don't remember the days, but I know that when I was at Bludworth I did not use any.

Lira injured his back in the course of his employment.He went to Dr. Frank Parrish for treatment.Although he was suffering from considerable pain, Lira did not engage in any chipping between the time he was injured and the time he met with Dr. Parrish.

Dr. Parrish prescribed a conservative treatment program.He instructed Lira to do special exercises and refrain from heavy exertion.He prescribed codeine and other drugs to combat the pain.Codeine is a narcotic.Lira did not tell Dr. Parrish that he was a former addict.

In due course, it became apparent that a conservative treatment program would not solve Lira's problems.A myelogram revealed a large intervertebral disc herniation which would require surgery.Lira was admitted to the hospital.He did not tell anyone connected with his treatment at the hospital that he had been a heroin addict.

The operation appeared to be relatively successful.Lira remained in the hospital for thirteen days.During his stay he was given repeated doses of narcotic drugs, including morphine and codeine.He received more medication than is normally required for post-operative back surgery.

Lira continued to rely on pain-killing narcotics after he was released from the hospital.Dr. Parrish would regularly prescribe additional narcotics.Nevertheless, the pain persisted.Lira was not satisfied with his legal supply of drugs.He took to the streets and began chipping again.He started by using heroin weekly, then daily.Within months, he was completely readdicted to the ruinous soporific.

His life in shambles, Lira made his way to Dr. Victor J. Cardenas, a neuropsychiatrist specializing in the treatment of problems related to drug and alcohol abuse.Dr. Cardenas freed Lira of his drug addiction by means of a thorough counselling and drug rehabilitation program.

Bludworth, through its insurance carrier, the Travelers Insurance Company, compensated Lira for temporary total disability and paid all medical expenses directly associated with his back injury.Lira does not suggest that he was undercompensated for these aspects of his claim.Rather, his disputed claim only involves the cost of the drug detoxification program administered by Dr. Cardenas.Bludworth has refused to reimburse him for these expenses.Thus, this suit.

The matter was initially heard by an Administrative Law Judge.The ALJ was unsympathetic to Lira's novel claim.Despite Lira's repeated testimony to the contrary, the ALJ found that Lira used heroin until almost immediately prior to his industrial accident.He was impressed by Lira's statement that "[a]nybody who started using drugs would [use more and more drugs] even if he wasn't addicted.If he started chipping a little, eventually he would get to using every day--anybody."He concluded that Lira's readdiction "was neither the result of the injury nor the result of the injury combined with his prior addiction, but was the result of his prior addiction alone."On this basis, he denied Lira's claim for medical expenses incurred as a result of his readdiction.

The Benefits Review Board reversed.A majority of the panel found that there was no evidence that Lira was addicted to drugs at the time of his work injury.It pointed to testimony "indicating that the continuous administration of drugs to a prior addict over a period of several days would result in a psychological dependence and then a physical dependence."It pointed out that Bludworth had not offered any evidence "that the administration of narcotic medication to claimant, a prior addict, did not lead to his readdiction."The majority concluded that Bludworth failed to rebut the presumption ¹ that Lira's readdiction was causally related to his work injury.It is from that ruling that Bludworth appeals.

II

Section 3 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act,33 U.S.C. Sec. 903, provides that compensation shall be payable "in respect of disability or death of an employee ...."Section 902(10) defines disability as "incapacity because of injury ...."Section 902(2) defines injury as an "accidental injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment ...."(emphasis added)The words "arising out of" instruct that the employment must have caused the injury.U.S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 455 U.S. 608, 102 S.Ct. 1312, 1318, 71 L.Ed.2d 495(1982).

Bludworth argues at great length that Lira's claimed injury is not compensable because it resulted from his prior condition.This argument is without merit.We have repeatedly held that an employer takes an employee as he finds him.Aggravation of a preexisting condition can be an "injury" under the Act.Fulks v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 637 F.2d 1008, 1012(5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1080, 102 S.Ct. 633, 70 L.Ed.2d 613(1982);Equitable Equipment Company v. Hardy, 558 F.2d 1192, 1195(5th Cir.1977);Cooper Stevedoring of Louisiana, Inc. v. Washington, 556 F.2d 268, 271(5th Cir.1977).²

The more difficult question in this case involves events that occurred after Lira was injured.Bludworth argues that Lira's deliberate failure to inform his doctors that he was a prior addict was the true cause of his readdiction.It argues that Lira's omission was an intervening cause that relieved it of all responsibility.

While the law in this area does not form a simple fit, it is logically consistent.It begins with the rule that the concept of proximate cause, as it is applied in the law of torts, is not applicable in the LHWCA setting.Voris v. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n, 190 F.2d 929, 934(5th Cir.1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 932, 72 S.Ct. 376, 96 L.Ed. 694(1951);Southern Stevedoring Co. v. Henderson, 175 F.2d 863, 865(5th Cir.1949).This is because proximate cause analysis in a typical tort case focuses on the question whether a party, in the conduct of his everyday affairs, should be held legally responsible for remote consequences of his acts.The inquiry under the LHWCA is much narrower.The court's sole function is to determine whether the injury complained of was one "arising out of" the employment.Once causation in fact is established, with only a few exceptions, the court's function is at an end.

One such exception is made when there is a supervening, independent cause of the injury in question.In Mississippi Coast Marine v. Bosarge, 637 F.2d 994(5th Cir.1981), we held that "[a] subsequent injury is compensable if it is the direct and natural result of a compensable primary injury, as long as the subsequent progression of the condition is not shown to have been worsened by an independent cause."Id. at 1000.In Atlantic Marine, Inc. v. Bruce, 661 F.2d 898, 901(5th Cir.1981), we cited Bosarge in support of our holding that the claimant's arteriosclerosis was not a supervening cause that would prevent an award of compensation.

Some of the language in Voris v. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n, 190 F.2d 929(5th Cir.1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 932, 72 S.Ct. 376, 96 L.Ed. 694(1951) seems to suggest that an intervening cause analysis can never have a place in an LHWCA case.In Voris, this court stated: "Compensation, as we have held, is payable under the Act irrespective of...