LAW.coLAW.co

AYERS v. KINDER MORGAN INC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-10No. No. 20-70550

Summary

Holding. The court affirmed the Benefits Review Board's decision upholding the Administrative Law Judge's denial of the permanent partial disability award, finding that Ayers did not meet his burden of establishing an impairment rating.

Michael Ayers sought review of a decision denying his claim for permanent partial disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The Administrative Law Judge rejected his claim because he failed to prove an impairment rating, finding that the medical opinion supporting his position lacked adequate explanation and contradicted two other doctors' assessments. The Benefits Review Board upheld this decision, and the court agreed that the ALJ's reasoning was neither arbitrary nor unsupported by evidence in the record.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether claimant established an impairment rating for permanent partial disability
  • Sufficiency of medical evidence to support impairment rating claim
  • Standard of review for ALJ decisions under Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act

Procedural posture

Ayers appealed the Benefits Review Board's affirmation of an Administrative Law Judge's denial of his permanent partial disability claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Michael Ayers appeals an order of the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) affirming a decision of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)’s denial of his claim for a permanent partial disability award under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) and affirm.

1. The BRB correctly determined that the ALJ stated a reason for the denial that was not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” i.e., that Ayers failed to carry his burden of establishing an impairment rating. See Shirrod v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 809 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2015).

2. Our review confirms that the ALJs findings were not “contrary to law, irrational, or not supported by substantial evidence.” Id. The ALJs finding that Dr. Ballard failed to explain his impairment-rating finding was rational and supported by the record: Dr. Ballards impairment-rating opinion was short, poorly explained, and contradicted by that of two other doctors. The ALJ correctly found that Ayers failed to carry his burden of establishing an impairment rating, and correctly denied an award for permanent partial disability on that basis. See 5 U.S.C. § 556(d); Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, Dept of Lab. v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267, 281 (1994).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.