Case: 21-60350 Document: 00516256687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 28, 2022
No. 21-60350
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Ricky Guidry,
Petitioner,
versus
Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs,
United States Department of Labor; Tampa Pipe & Welding,
Incorporated,
Respondents.
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board
BRB No. 20-0469
Before Dennis, Elrod, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ricky Guidry petitions for review after being denied benefits under
the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), 33
U.S.C. §§ 901–950. We deny the petition.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60350 Document: 00516256687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
No. 21-60350
I.
In March 2015, Guidry worked a temporary assignment with a marine
contractor, Respondent Tampa Pipe & Welding, Inc. 1 While moving
scaffolding at a port terminal, he felt a sharp pain in his back, which caused
him to drop the scaffolding onto his head, neck, and back.
Guidry had a prior well-documented history (dating from 2010 to
2014) of joint, abdominal, arm, back, leg, hip, and neck pain mitigated with
prescription pain medication. These ailments stem from a 2010 vehicle
accident and a 2013 work-related electrocution accident. Days before the
March 2015 incident, Guidry filled a pain medication prescription to treat
those lingering symptoms.
A week after the incident, Guidry sought attention from Tampa Pipe’s
medical staff for hip and thigh pain. When Tampa Pipe denied his request for
medical attention, Guidry went to the Tampa VA Hospital, where an MRI
resulted in a diagnosis of various back, spine, and thigh issues.
Guidry tried to return to work but felt more leg pain, so he went back
to the Tampa VA. A different physician diagnosed a chronic disc problem
and discharged Guidry with instructions to return to work but not lift over 20
pounds or operate heavy machinery. The physician also observed that Guidry
exhibited pain-medication-seeking behavior. Back at work, Tampa Pipe sent
Guidry to be examined by an occupational medicine specialist, Dr. Bruce
Bohnker, who agreed with the VA’s work limitations and referred Guidry to
an orthopedic spinal surgeon for his herniated disc. Dr. Bohnker believed the
2015 incident aggravated Guidry’s prior back injury.
1
Shellback Marine (through Oasis Outsourcing) employed Guidry full-time as a
temporary worker for marine contractors, like Tampa Pipe. Both Shellback Marine and
Tampa Pipe had LHWCA coverage through Signal Mutual.
2
Case: 21-60350 Document: 00516256687 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
No. 21-60350
Guidry then stopped working and returned to live with his fiancée
Sherry Kerry in Alexandria, Louisiana, where he was treated regularly at the
Alexandria VA Hospital. Guidry soon reported significant neck and back
pain, leading to more MRIs and diagnoses of neck and back problems. In July
2015, Guidry applied for LHWCA benefits.
Two orthopedic surgeons, Dr. Neil Romero and Dr. David
Muldowny, evaluated Guidry. Both diagnosed degenerative changes in
Guidry’s cervical and lumbar spine, and Dr. Muldowny additionally
diagnosed spinal stenosis in the cervical region. Dr. Romero concluded the
pain was “likely a continuation of ongoing symptoms,” unrelated to the work
injury. Dr. Robert Kagan, a radiologist, reviewed Guidry’s MRIs and
concluded there was “never any objective evidence of injury” in the spine
related to the 2015 work incident. Guidry supplemented his LHWCA claim
with their medical reports in December 2016. After two years of failing to
settle the claim before the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs
(OWCP), OWCP referred the claim to the Office of Administrative Law
Judges for adjudication. The parties submitted evidence to the ALJ including
Guidry’s medical history, reports from Drs. Romero, Muldowny, Kagan, and
Bohnker; surveillance footage of Guidry from a private investigator; and
vocational expert reports.
In December 2019, the ALJ held a hearing at which Guidry, Kerry, the
private investigator, and the vocational expert testified. The ALJ concluded
that, though Guidry presented a prima facie case of a work-related injury, he
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 2015 incident
caused or aggravated problems with his lower extremities, lumbar spine, or
cervical spine. See 33 U.S.C. § 920(a). Accordingly, the ALJ denied benefits.
Guidry appealed to the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”), which affirmed the
ALJ’s decision. 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3). Guidry petitions for our review.
3
Case: 21-60350 Document: 00516256687 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
No. 21-60350
II.
We review the BRB’s decision under a highly deferential standard,
assessing only “whether it has adhered to its proper scope of review—i.e.,
whether the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and
are consistent with the law.” Ceres Gulf, Inc. v. Dir., OWCP, 683 F.3d 225,
228 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is that relevant
evidence—more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance—that would
cause a reasonable person to accept the fact finding.” Ibid. (internal
quotations and citation omitted). “Neither we nor the [BRB] may substitute
our judgment for that of the ALJ.” Bis Salamis, Inc. v. Dir., OWCP, 819 F.3d
116, 126 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). The ALJ “is exclusively entitled
to assess both the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses.”
Ceres Gulf, 683 F.3d at 228 (collecting cases). We “may vacate the [BRB]’s
decision if it improperly fails to accept the ALJ’s assessments.” Bis Salamis,
819 F.3d at 126 (citation omitted).
III.
Despite a pre-existing condition, an otherwise eligible claimant may
receive LHWCA benefits “if a workplace incident aggravates that
condition.” Sea-Land Servs., Inc. v. Dir., OWCP, 949 F.3d 921, 924 (5th Cir.
2020) (citing Bis Salamis, 819 F.3d at 128). “Aggravation occurs where an
employment injury worsens or combines with a preexisting impairment to
produce a disability greater than that which would have resulted from the
employment injury alone.” Ibid. (internal quotations and citation omitted).
There is no aggravation, however, where the claimed disability results only
from the natural progression of the pre-existing condition. Id. at 924–25. At
issue here is whether the 2015 workplace incident aggravated Guidry’s pre-
existing condition (making him eligible for benefits) or whether Guidry’s
4
Case: 21-60350 Document: 00516256687 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
No. 21-60350
injury represents only the natural progression of that pre-existing condition
(making him ineligible for benefits).
We evaluate this issue in three steps. Id. at 925. First, Guidry must
establish a prima facie case of causation “by showing ‘that (1) he suffered
harm and (2) conditions of the workplace, or an accident at the workplace,
could have caused, aggravated, or accelerated the harm.’” Ibid. (quoting Bis
Salamis, 819 F.3d at 127). All agree Guidry satisfied this step. This creates a
presumption under § 920(a) that his injury was “work-related” and he “is
entitled to compensation.” Ibid. (citation omitted). Second, Respondents can
rebut the presumption by “presenting substantial evidence that [Tampa
Pipe’s] workplace did not cause or aggravate [Guidry’s] injury.” Ibid. Third,
if the presumption is rebutted, the burden shifts back to Guidry to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the workplace incident caused or
aggravated his injury. Ibid. Guidry challenges the ALJ’s conclusions at steps
two and three.
A.
At step two, the ALJ found Respondents rebutted the § 920(a)
presumption with evidence of pre-existing symptomatic neck and back pain
in Guidry’s medical history and Dr. Kagan’s report analyzing his pre- and
post-incident MRIs. Guidry asserts that Dr. Kagan’s opinion alone was
insufficient to rebut the presumption because it was based solely on his
interpretation of select MRI scans and X-rays. We disagree.
“The ‘substantial evidence’ showing needed to rebut the § 920(a)
presumption is a ‘minimal requirement’ less demanding than a
preponderance of the evidence.” Sea-Land, 949 F.3d at 926 (quoting Ortco
Contractors, Inc. v. Charpentier, 332 F.3d 283, 289 (5th Cir. 2003)). Contrary
to Guidry’s contentions, Respondents need only provide “factual doubt”
5
Case: 21-60350 Document: 00516256687 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
No. 21-60350
that the symptoms are work-related. See Ceres Gulf, 683 F.3d at 231; see also
Ramsay Scarlett & Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 806 F.3d 327, 333 (5th Cir. 2015).
Here, Dr. Kagan’s medical opinion that Guidry’s pain is not work
related based on Guidry’s history of MRIs generates sufficient “factual
doubt” to satisfy Respondents’ minimal burden. See, e.g., Conoco, Inc. v. Dir.,
OWCP, 194 F.3d 684, 690 (5th Cir. 1999) (rejecting argument that rebuttal
evidence must entirely rule out that the injury was work-related). Substantial
evidence thus supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Respondents rebutted the
§ 920(a) presumption.
B.
At step three, the ALJ found Guidry did not meet his burden to show
the 2015 incident caused or aggravated his injury. Relevant here, the ALJ acts
as the factfinder, “assess[ing] the relevance and credibility of testimony,
including expert testimony,” and determining questions of credibility and
conflicting evidence. Ceres Gulf, 683 F.3d at 229. The ALJ is “free to
disregard parts of some witnesses’ testimony while crediting other parts of
that testimony[,]” even experts’ opinions. Mijangos v. Avondale Shipyards,
Inc., 948 F.2d 941, 945 (5th Cir. 1991). As a result, a reviewing court must
refrain from “reevaluat[ing] each piece of evidence presented to the ALJ.”
Sea-Land, 949 F.3d at 927. “Neither we nor the [BRB] may substitute our
judgment for that of the ALJ.” Bis Salamis, 819 F.3d at 126. “Although
another factfinder might have reached a different conclusion,” we must
accept the ALJ’s factual conclusions. Ceres Gulf, 683 F.3d at 232. Guidry
argues the ALJ incorrectly found him not credible and improperly weighed
the evidence at step three by, inter alia, conferring lesser weight to treating
physicians like Dr. Bohnker. We disagree.
Each of Guidry’s step-three arguments improperly asks us to reweigh
the facts and draw different inferences than the ALJ. We cannot do so. See
6
Case: 21-60350 Document: 00516256687 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
No. 21-60350
Bis Salamis, 819 F.3d at 126. The ALJ found Guidry and Kerry were not
credible based on Guidry’s medical history and years of relying on
prescription pain medication to treat back pain—in direct conflict with their
testimony and Guidry’s representations to the doctors. 2 Likewise, because
Guidry had falsely represented his medical history to Drs. Muldowny and
Bohnker, the ALJ attributed less weight to their reports and testimony. The
ALJ relied primarily on evidence from Drs. Kagan and Romero to find the
work-place incident had not aggravated Guidry’s back injuries. As a result,
the ALJ denied benefits.
While evidence points both ways, the ALJ gave greater weight to
evidence indicating the 2015 incident did not aggravate Guidry’s pre-existing
condition. Because those findings “are supported by substantial evidence and
are consistent with the law,” Ceres Gulf, 683 F.3d at 228, the ALJ did not
reversibly err and the BRB correctly affirmed his decision.
PETITION DENIED
2
In reciting the evidence, the ALJ referenced a withdrawn news story about a
“Ricky Guidry” (not the petitioner) arrested for cocaine possession. Guidry vigorously
contests this as reversible error, but he is mistaken. The BRB correctly concluded that,
while the story should have been excluded from the record per the parties’ agreement, the
ALJ did not rely on it for his credibility determination.
7