ALJ Etchingham Denies Clamaint Compensation

EDWARD REDDEG v. NATIONAL STEEL & SHIPBUILDING COMPANY
Read Full Decision Here


Excerpts
Claimant argues first that he sets forth sufficient evidence to invoke the presumption contained under § 20(a) of the Act, which favors claimants in Longshore cases. Under § 20(a), a court may presume that a claimant‟s injury causally relates to his or her employment. See Pedroza v. BRB, No. 05-75449, slip op. at 14090 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2009); Kelaita v. Triple A Mach. Shop, 13 BRBS 326, 331 (1981). However, for a claimant to receive the benefit of the §20(a) presumption, he or she must establish two elements: (1) that physical harm or pain has occurred and (2) that working conditions existed or an accident occurred that could have led to such harm. See U.S. Indus./Fed. Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Dir., OWCP, 455 U.S. 608, 615-16 (1982); Kelaita, 13 BRBS at 329-31; see also Ramey v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 134 F.3d 954, 959 (9th Cir. 1998). In this case, I therefore look first to see if Claimant has successfully established these two elements necessary to invoke the § 20(a) presumption.
 In this case, Employer points to multiple sources of evidence to rebut Claimant‟s § 20(a presumption. First, Employer notes that any cumulative trauma claim rests primarily on Claimant‟s own description of symptoms and subjective complaints of pain. Employer argues that Claimant suffers from severe credibility problems, and that this must necessarily taint the subjective evidence giving rise to his cumulative trauma claim. Next, Employer attacks the conclusions, testimony, and credibility of Dr. Cleary, who concluded that Claimant suffered from a cumulative trauma injury while working for Employer. Finally, Employer offers the findings of Dr. Asdit and Dr. Raiszadeh to argue that any pain or additional symptoms experienced by Claimant related to the natural progression of Claimant‟s August 11, 2005 injury and not a new cumulative trauma injury.5 Below, I examine all of these contentions and the evidence associated with each.

Conclusion

I find that Claimant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury as a result of his work for Employer.
Claimant‟s evidence to support such a claim consists primarily of his own subjective
complaints of pain and description of symptoms coupled with the findings of Dr. John Cleary. I
find that a lack of credibility undermines the testimony and opinions of both Claimant and Dr.
Cleary. Furthermore, I find that Employer offers credible evidence that no such injury occurred
through the testimony and reports of Dr. William Asdit and Dr. Kamshad Raiszadeh, two of
Claimant‟s treating physicians. Therefore, I discuss below only the reasoning behind my finding
that no such new injury occurred; the extent  of Claimant‟s disability following his August 11,
2005 injury; Claimant‟s ability to undertake his usual and customary occupation of marine electrician; and Employer‟s entitlement to a credit for Abbott benefits.