Bumble Bee Seafoods v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 78-1649
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before HUG, FLETCHER, and FARRIS; FLETCHER |
| Citation | 629 F.2d 1327 |
| Parties | BUMBLE BEE SEAFOODS and Great American Insurance Co., Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor, Respondents, and Reynold Hansen, Charging Party. |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1649 |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1980 |
Page 1327
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United
States Department of Labor, Respondents,
and
Reynold Hansen, Charging Party.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 10, 1980.
Page 1328
Margaret H. Leek Leiberan, Jones, Lang, Klein, Wolf & Smith, Portland, Or., for petitioners.
Raymond J. Conboy, Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, Kahn & O'Leary, Portland, Or., for respondents.
Petition to Review a Final Order of the Benefits Review Board.
Before HUG, FLETCHER, and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Bumble Bee Seafoods Company (Bumble Bee) petitions for review of a final order of the Benefits Review Board (Board) granting benefits for total disability to appellee Reynold Hansen under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-50 (1976) (the Act). We affirm.
Reynold Hansen worked as a laborer for Bumble Bee. On April 11, 1973, he injured his back while scrubbing the bottom of a boat. During the next two years he made several attempts to return to work, but each attempt led to renewed injury and hospitalization. He finally stopped working in late 1975 and filed a claim for disability benefits under the Act. A Labor Department administrative law judge conducted a hearing, determined that Hansen was totally disabled, and granted him full disability benefits. The Board affirmed.
The Act compensates harbor workers for work-related disabilities. The degree of physical impairment is measured by its impact on the worker's earning capacity. Cordero v. Triple A Mach. Shop, 580 F.2d 1331, 1334-35 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 911, 99 S.Ct. 1223, 59 L.Ed.2d 459 (1979). If a claimant's employer contests the disability claim, an administrative law judge conducts a hearing and by order either rejects the claim or makes an award. 33 U.S.C. § 919(c) (1976). The order may be appealed to the Board, which reviews the record compiled by the administrative law judge and issues a final order. 33 U.S.C. § 921(b) (1976). Final orders may be reviewed by petition to the court of appeals. 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) (1976).
Bumble Bee first contends that the administrative law judge and the Board wrongly forced it to bear the burden of persuasion. However, Congress created a statutory presumption that a claimant's injury is covered by the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 920(a) (1976), and we recently held that the humanitarian policy underlying the Act requires resolution of all doubtful questions of fact in favor of the injured employee.
Page 1329
Parsons Corp. of Cal. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 619 F.2d 38, 41 (9th Cir. 1980). Once the claimant has proved that a work-related injury prevents him from performing his former job, the only remaining issue is the availability of other jobs he can perform. It is appropriate to place on the employer the burden of showing that there are available jobs which the claimant can perform. Otherwise, the claimant would have the difficult burden of proving a negative, requiring him to canvass the entire job market. American Stevedores, Inc. v. Salzano, 538 F.2d 933, 935-36 (2d Cir. 1976).It was undisputed that Hansen's injury prevented him from performing his former job as a laborer. Therefore, Bumble Bee had the burden of persuading the administrative law judge of the availability of other jobs that Hansen could perform. The administrative law judge found that Bumble Bee had not met this burden of persuasion.
Bumble Bee asserts that this finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Before we examine this assertion, however, we address the scope of our review. The Labor Department argues that the court of appeals should not independently review the substantiality of the evidence supporting the administrative law judge's finding but instead should limit its inquiry to whether the Board's determination that substantial evidence supported that finding was clearly erroneous. In other words, the Labor Department...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.T. v. Global International Offshore, Ltd., BRB 08-0119
...1031 (1994); Hairston v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 849 F.2d 1194, 21 BRBS 122(CRT) (9th Cir. 1988); Bumble Bee Seafoods v. Director, OWCP, 629 F.2d 1327, 12 BRBS 660 (9th Cir. 1980). Restrictions from pre-existing conditions are to be considered in addressing a claimant's ability to work in alt......
-
Castro v. General Construction Co., BRB 02-0783
...Co. v. Miller, 691 F.2d 45, 15 BRBS 23(CRT) (1st Cir. 1982); Turner, 661 F.2d 1031, 14 BRBS 156; Bumble Bee Seafoods v. Director, OWCP, 629 F.2d 1327, 12 BRBS 660 (9th Cir. 1980); Godfrey v. Henderson, 222 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1955). Just as the courts and the Board have analyzed these issues......
-
General Const. Co. v. Castro, No. 03-72528.
...age, education, and background, and with a diligent employment search on the claimant's part. See Bumble Bee Seafoods v. Dir., OWCP, 629 F.2d 1327, 1329-30 (9th Cir.1980); Stevens, 909 F.2d at 1258.5 Disabilities not precluding suitable alternative employment are classified as partial. Stev......
-
Gibas v. Saginaw Min. Co., No. 83-3408
...law judge's factual determinations." Director, OWCP v. Rowe, 710 F.2d at 254 (quoting Bumble Bee Seafoods v. Director, OWCP, 629 F.2d 1327, 1329 (9th Cir.1980) Page 1117 The Director and Gibas assert that the Board lacks the authority to declare the Secretary's regulations invalid. The......
-
J.T. v. Global International Offshore, Ltd., BRB 08-0119
...1031 (1994); Hairston v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 849 F.2d 1194, 21 BRBS 122(CRT) (9th Cir. 1988); Bumble Bee Seafoods v. Director, OWCP, 629 F.2d 1327, 12 BRBS 660 (9th Cir. 1980). Restrictions from pre-existing conditions are to be considered in addressing a claimant's ability to work in alt......
-
Castro v. General Construction Co., BRB 02-0783
...Co. v. Miller, 691 F.2d 45, 15 BRBS 23(CRT) (1st Cir. 1982); Turner, 661 F.2d 1031, 14 BRBS 156; Bumble Bee Seafoods v. Director, OWCP, 629 F.2d 1327, 12 BRBS 660 (9th Cir. 1980); Godfrey v. Henderson, 222 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1955). Just as the courts and the Board have analyzed these issues......
-
General Const. Co. v. Castro, No. 03-72528.
...age, education, and background, and with a diligent employment search on the claimant's part. See Bumble Bee Seafoods v. Dir., OWCP, 629 F.2d 1327, 1329-30 (9th Cir.1980); Stevens, 909 F.2d at 1258.5 Disabilities not precluding suitable alternative employment are classified as partial. Stev......
-
Gibas v. Saginaw Min. Co., No. 83-3408
...law judge's factual determinations." Director, OWCP v. Rowe, 710 F.2d at 254 (quoting Bumble Bee Seafoods v. Director, OWCP, 629 F.2d 1327, 1329 (9th Cir.1980) Page 1117 The Director and Gibas assert that the Board lacks the authority to declare the Secretary's regulations invalid. The......