Stevedoring Services of America v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs

MEMORANDUM *

This case originates out of Nathan Huffman’s claim for compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Stevedoring Services of America, Huffman’s former employer, petitions for review of an award of permanent total disability benefits to Huffman. We have jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 921 and we grant the petition for review.

Huffman suffered a shoulder strain on April 26, 1990 while working for Stevedoring Services and subsequently filed a claim for disability benefits under the Act. At the hearing before the administrative law judge, Huffman claimed that, in addition to his strained shoulder, he suffered from depression caused, in part, by the revelation that his shoulder injury precluded future employment as a stevedore. He also claimed that stress associated with the litigation over his disability benefits contributed to his depression.

Testimony relating to the onset of Huffman’s alleged depression was, however, conflicting. At one point, Huffman testified that he started going into a depression shortly after he received the shoulder injury in April 1990. At another point, Huffman testified that he became depressed several months later,…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The issue in this case is not complex. Does the claimant suffer a depression which is related to a physical injury at work? The Benefits Review Board held that as a matter of law the claimant has established his depression claim.

At the initial proceedings before the administrative law judge, the employer did not dispute the fact that the claimant had a depression. Furthermore it did not dispute that fact before the Board. The employer only contended that because the claimant’s depression did not develop until nineteen months after his physical injury at work and that he had other problems, the depression was not related to his physical injury. In his initial decision, the administrative law judge found as a fact that the claimant suffered from depression, but concluded that it was not work-related.

The Board held that because the employer had not introduced any contrary medical evidence regarding the cause of *443 the depression, the finding of the administrative law judge that the claimant does not have a work-related depression was an impermissible substitution of his medical judgment for that of the medical providers.

Secondly, the Board…