UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 99-60498
SUMMARY CALENDAR
WILL I. GREGORY,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC.; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Benefits Review Board
(98-6808)
September 5, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Will I. Gregory petitions for review of a final
order of the Benefits Review Board (BRB), affirming an
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) order denying benefits. In 1993,
Gregory was employed by Ingalls Shipbuildings, Inc., when he
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
slipped and injured his wrist. After having surgery, Gregory
returned to work under light duty restrictions until May 10, 1995,
when he was laid off. On July 17, 1995, he was released from all
restrictions by his treating physician. Gregory was paid temporary
total benefits for the period of May 10, 1995, through May 25,
1995, but was not paid for the period of May 25, 1995, to July 17,
1995. He made a claim for benefits, which was denied by an ALJ
after a formal hearing. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the
ALJ’s order.
Gregory contends that the ALJ erred in relying on the
testimony of a doctor who had examined him once and rejecting the
testimony of his treating physician. However, “we are not free to
reweigh the evidence or to make determinations of credibility....
The scope of our review is limited: ‘We will only consider whether
the BRB made any errors of law and whether the ALJ’s findings of
fact, in light of the entire record, are supported by substantial
evidence.’” Sealand Terminals, Inc. v Gasparic, 7 F. 3d 321, 323
(5th Cir. 1993)(internal citations omitted). “As fact finder, the
ALJ determines questions of credibility of witnesses and of
conflicting evidence.” Avondale Industries, Inc. v Director,
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 977 F. 2d 186, 189 (5th
Cir. 1992).
We conclude that the ALJ’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence and that the BRB did not make an error of law.
The ALJ was entitled to accept the testimony of one board certified
physician over another that Gregory was able to return to work
without restrictions on May 25, 1995. Furthermore, the evidence
shows that even the treating physician noted that Gregory
exaggerated his symptoms and used sub-maximal effort in a
diagnostic test.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the Benefits Review Board.