ALJ JOHNSON (WASHINGTON) AFTER COURT REPORTER DISAPPEARS WITH TRANSCRIPT, BRB REVERSES DECISION DENYING CLAM FOR PTSD AND ORDERS REVIEW OF 'HARM' ELEMENT. BENEFITS AWARDED.

This is a claim for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act,
33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., as extended by the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1651(a). In this case,
Claimant Todd Walkley alleges that he suffered a compensable psychological injury while
working for a defense contractor in Iraq in May of 2007.
I held a formal hearing in this matter on October 14, 2008. At that time, Administrative
Law Judge Exhibit 1, Claimant’s Exhibits (“CX”) 1-21, and Employer’s Exhibits (“EX”) 1-22,
were received. Subsequent to the hearing, the court reporter who recorded the proceedings
disappeared, along with the tapes of the hearing; consequently, no transcript was prepared or
received. At the suggestion and with the agreement of counsel for the parties, post-hearing
depositions were conducted of the two witnesses who had testified at the formal hearing:
- 2 -
Claimant and John W. Griffith, MD. [EX 26 and 27]. Claimant’s deposition was preserved on a
digital video disk which is part of the record.
In my Decision and Order Denying Benefits, issued on March 31, 2009, I determined
that, as Claimant failed to substantiate his claim that he suffers from PTSD, he did not establish
the “harm” element necessary for the invocation of the Section 20(a) presumption.
Consequently, I denied his claim for disability and medical benefits under the Act. As detailed
below, on appeal to the Benefits Review Board (“the Board” or “BRB”) vacated my finding that
Claimant did not establish the harm element of his prima facie case, and remanded the case for
consideration in accordance with the Board’s instructions. Walkley v. Service Employees Int’l,
Inc., BRB No. 09-0573 (Apr. 23, 2010)(unpub.).
On remand, by Order of September 14, 2010, the parties were afforded an opportunity to
submit additional relevant evidence, and any objections thereto, and to file supplemental written
closing arguments. Both parties subsequently filed supplemental written arguments; no
additional evidence was submitted by the parties on remand. The pertinent factual background
and medical evidence were summarized in my Decision and Order of March 31, 2009, and are
hereby incorporated by reference.1
....


Finally, I note that Dr. Griffith did not address the fact that several of the indicators of
malingering noted in the same study were not present and, conversely, several indicators of
PTSD noted by the authors were present in this case. EX 26, ex. 4 at 8, Table 5. In sum, I give
diminished weight to Dr. Griffith’s diagnosis of malingering, and find, accordingly, that the
weight of medical authority in this case establishes that Claimant suffers from PTSD and
depression causally related to his employment in Iraq.

Todd vs. Service Employees International