In the present case, Mr. Oliver suffered from multiple contusions to his head and worked in conditions where he was often required to work in confined spaces, bend, twist, crawl, climb, reach and lift overhead, and do light to heavy lifting of weight up to sixty-four pounds, while employed as a pipe lagger for Electric Boat from 2003 until 2011.24 TR 41; CX-13 at 29. The Claimant asserted that these work conditions and repeated contusions to the head contributed to and exacerbated his cervical arthritis, causing neck pain, headaches, and dizziness. TR 15. In his trial testimony, Mr. Oliver stated his work at EB caused his symptoms to build up over time. TR 57. Mr. Oliver alleged that his September 2011 leave from work was due to neck pain, severe headaches, and some dizziness caused by his work conditions. TR 48. Mr. Oliver further alleged that his November 2011 leave was caused by an incident in which he hit his head on a hanger while performing a task at work. TR 46.
----
Once an employer rebuts the Section 20(a) presumption, “the ALJ must weigh all of the record evidence to determine whether the claimant has established the necessary causal link between the injury and employment.” Fields, 599 F.3d at 53; see Preston, 380 F.3d at 605; Brown, 194 F.3d at 5. The Claimant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. Fields, 599 F.3d at 53. The ALJ, as factfinder, is “entitled to evaluate the credibility of all witnesses and to draw his own inferences from the evidence.” O’Kelley, 34 BRBS at 42; see John W. McGrath Corp. v. Hughes, 289 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1961); Wheeler v. Interocean Stevedoring, Inc., 21 BRBS 33 (1988).
As the presumption has been rebutted, I must now weigh all of the evidence to determine whether Mr. Oliver has established that his injuries are causally related to his employment at Electric Boat. After careful consideration, I find Mr. Oliver to be credible in his testimony of his working conditions and frequent long-standing injuries. Two fellow laggers for EB, Mr. Hall and Mr. Perry, confirm Mr. Oliver’s working conditions.
---
The opinions of the Claimant’s and Defendant’s medical experts differ on the key issue of causation, specifically on whether banging one’s head or heavy lifting may cause or contribute to Mr. Oliver’s neck pain. After careful consideration, I credit the opinions of Drs. Crisafi and Hamburger over that of Dr. Gaccione. Drs. Crisafi and Hamburger have been Mr. Oliver’s treating physicians and have seen the progression of Mr. Oliver’s neck pain, headaches, and vertigo. Additionally, Dr. Crisafi has been Mr. Oliver’s primary care physician for thirteen years, and has personally noticed a decline in Mr. Oliver’s health since his employment at EB. Dr. Gaccione only examined Mr. Oliver for an IME, and further gave a report and a deposition without knowledge of the November 2011 event or access to many of the case records. Dr. Gaccione based much of his analysis on the lack of an incidence of trauma and found importance in the severity of Mr. Oliver’s head injuries. Since Dr. Gaccione had limited knowledge of Mr. Oliver’s medical records and work injuries, I find his IME and testimony to be unreliable.
Accordingly, I find that Mr. Oliver has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his neck pain, headaches, and vertigo were causally related to his duties at Electric Boat.
No comments:
Post a Comment