UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 98-60012
Summary Calendar
TRINITY MARINE GROUP, INC. and RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY CO.,
Petitioners,
VERSUS
EDWARD JOLLY,
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order
of the Benefits Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor
(97-430)
September 16, 1998
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges
JOHN M. DUHÉ, JR., Circuit Judge:1
Appellee worked for Appellant as a shipfitter when he fell and
injured his back. The ALJ awarded Appellee both temporary and
permanent disability benefits. The Benefits Review Board affirmed
the ALJ. We too affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 1992, Edward Jolly (“Jolly”) began working for Trinity
Marine Group (“Trinity”) as a shipfitter. Before starting work,
Jolly underwent a physical and was assigned a rating of Class I
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
despite injuring his back in 1984. On March 15, 1994, while
working, Jolly fell into an uncovered hole in the main deck of a
vessel under construction. He injured his back and a rib. Trinity
voluntarily paid Jolly temporary total disability benefits for five
months, but Jolly sought additional benefits. The administrative
law judge (“ALJ”) awarded him one month’s temporary partial
disability benefits, eight months’ temporary total disability
benefits and permanent partial disability benefits from December
23, 1994 to the present. The ALJ further awarded Jolly medical
benefits and interest. Trinity appealed the ALJ’s decision to the
Benefits Review Board (“BRB”). The BRB affirmed. Trinity now
appeals to this Court.
ANALYSIS
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The BRB may not review the evidence before it de novo or
substitute its views for the ALJ’s. Mijangos v. Avondale
Shipyards, Inc., 948 F.2d 941, 944 (5th Cir.1991). Rather, the BRB
must accept the ALJ’s fact findings unless they are irrational, or
if after considering the record as a whole, they are unsupported by
substantial evidence. Id. (citing 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3)).
Therefore, when we review the BRB’s decisions, our "’only function
is to correct errors of law and to determine if the BRB adhered to
its proper scope of review--i.e., has the Board deferred to the
ALJ's fact-finding or has it undertaken de novo review and
substituted its views for the ALJ's.’" Ceres Marine Terminal v.
Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 118
2
F.3d 387, 389 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing, Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v.
Vinson, 623 F.2d 1117, 1119 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1980)). In conducting
our review, we must independently examine the record to determine
whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings. Id.
Trinity argues that the ALJ made three errors. First, it
argues that the ALJ incorrectly found that Jolly’s disability was
causally related to his injury at Trinity. Second, it argues that
the ALJ erred in refusing to allow Trinity’s vocational consultant
to testify to Jolly’s post-injury employment possibilities and his
ability to perform the duties thereof. Third, it argues that the
ALJ erred in finding that Jolly had a residual wage earning
capacity equal to minimum wage. Having reviewed the record and the
ALJ’s and BRB’s opinions, we hold that the ALJ’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence, and he committed no reversible
error.
We AFFIRM.
3