Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co., Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, & James M. Duran, 535 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co., Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, & James M. Duran, 535 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: New Orleans Stevedor v. Ibos (ca5, 2003-05-20)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#10 33 U.S.C. § 923 cited 1× in this case · 40 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) New Orleans Stevedor v. Ibos
5th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Our review of the BRB’s factual findings is limited to determining whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. -3- Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 535 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) New Orleans Stevedores v. Ibos
5th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 535 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir.1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) New Orleans Stevedores v. Ibos
5th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 535 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir.1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ito Corporation v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor and Paul Aples
5th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Board.” Tampa Ship Repair, Etc. v. Director, OWCP, 535 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir.1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Earl D. Boone v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor and Bethlehem Steel Corporation
4th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co. v. Director, 535 F.2d 936, 938 (5 Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas Smith v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc., Transport Indemnity Company, and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U. S. Department of Labor, Marie Wilson Smith (Widow of Thomas Smith) v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc., Transport Indemnity Company, and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U. S. Department of Labor, Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc., Transport Indemnity Company, Thomas Smith and Marie Wilson Smith (Widow of Thomas Smith)
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Although we are reluctant to disturb the findings of the administrative law judge, Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co., Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 535 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1976), we believe that, viewed in the liberal light appropriate when applying the LHWCA, Voris v. Eikel, 346 U.S. 328, 333 , 74 S.Ct. 88, 92 , 98 L.Ed. 5 (1953), his findings are not supported by substantial evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Although we are reluctant to disturb the findings of the administrative law judge, Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co., Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 535 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1976), we believe that, viewed in the liberal light appropriate when applying the LHWCA, Voris v. Eikel, 346 U.S. 328, 333 , 74 S.Ct. 88, 92 , 98 L.Ed. 5 (1953), his findings are not supported by substantial evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eller and Company and Midland Insurance Company v. Marshall Golden and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U. S. Department of Labor
5th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
We “must sustain the [Benefits] Review Board’s determinations if there is substantial evidence to support these determinations.” Army & Air Force Exchange Service v. Greenwood, 585 F.2d 791, 796 (5th Cir. 1978); Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co., Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 535 F.2d 936, 937 (5th Cir. 1976); Presley v. Tinsley Maintenance Service, 529 F.2d 433, 436 (5th Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. National Van Lines, Inc., Transport Indemnity Company, Eureka Van & Storage Company, Maryland Casualty Company, and James A. Riley, Iii, James A. Riley, III v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
D.C. Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Programs, 535 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1976) (Per curiam ) 25 The "place where the industry is localized" is a well recognized contact that supports assertion of jurisdiction over workmen's compensation claims. 4 A. Larson, Supra note 21, § 86.10 at 16-33. "(T)he place where the industry is localized has a special interest, in that the burdens and costs of compensation fall most directly upon employers and consumers in the area where the industry is centered." Id. § 86.34 at 16-42 26 There is testimony in the record by Riley, Sr. that Eureka maintained a telephone answering service in the Dis…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. National Van Lines, Inc.
D.C. Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Programs, 535 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1976) (per curiam). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." William Hagerty v. L & L Marine Services, Inc., and Union Carbide Corp.
5th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co. v. Collins, 253 U.S. 77, 85 , 40 S.Ct. 450, 453 , 64 L.Ed. 790, 794 (1920) (“shame and humiliation”); Wood v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 691 F.2d 1165 , 1167 n. 3, 1169 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1069 , 103 S.Ct. 1523 , 75 L.Ed.2d 947 (1983) (pain, suffering, mental anguish and loss of life’s enjoyment); Bullard v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc., 565 F.2d 193, 197 (1st Cir.1977) (fright or mental suffering resulting from injury); see also Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co., Inc. v. Director, 535 F.2d 936 (5th Cir.1976) (upholding finding of permanent disability, under Longshor…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TAMPA SHIP REPAIR & DRY DOCK CO., INC., Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, and James M. Duran, Respondents
75-4137.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 23, 1976.
535 F.2d 936
Anthony J. Garofoli, John A. Polito, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner., Herbert A. Doyle, Jr., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Dir., Office Wkrs.’ Comp. Programs, Washington, D. C., William M. O’Keeffe, Deputy Comm., Office Wkrs.’ Comp. Programs, U. S. Dept, of Labor, Jacksonville, Fla., William J. Kilberg, Sol. of Labor, Laurie M. Streeter, Associate Sol., Harry L. Sheinfeld, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., for Director, Office of Wkrs.’ Comp. Programs., William H. Yanger, Jr., Cary R. Singletary, Tampa, Fla., for James M. Duran.
Ainsworth, Clark, Per Curiam, Ro-Ney.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Tampa Ship Repair and Dry Dock Company, Inc., petitions for review of an order of the Benefits Review Board, United States Department of Labor, which affirmed the decision of an administrative law judge ordering permanent disability benefits for James M. Duran pursuant to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.

The administrative law judge found that Duran was injured May 16, 1973, and August 3, 1973, in the course of his employment by Tampa. The judge found that Duran was permanently disabled as a result of a psychological condition described as a conversion reaction which was caused by the May and August injuries suffered by Duran. A conversion reaction is a form of neurosis and hysteria in which an individual’s anxiety and tension are converted into physical symptoms. The judge found Duran had a predisposition to have this type of problem and that the reaction was triggered by accidents suffered in May and August of 1973. The administrative law judge concluded, therefore, that Duran’s permanent disability was caused by the accidents suffered in the course of employment and was compensable under the Act. The judge specifically found that psychological disorders such as conversion reactions are compensable within the meaning of the Act.

Tampa first contends that there is not substantial evidence to uphold the finding of the administrative law judge nor the affirmance by the Benefits Review Board. A review of the record shows that the testimony of Dr. Rubio unequivoeably supports the factual conclusion reached by the judge. In addition, the contradictory evidence was primarily presented by doctors who admitted that they did not examine Duran for psychological problems. Since the facts[*938] found by the administrative law judge are clearly supported by substantial evidence, this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative law judge nor the Benefits Review Board. O’Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman and Grylls Associates, Inc., 380 U.S. 359, 85 S.Ct. 1012, 13 L.Ed.2d 895 (1965); Young & Company v. Shea, 404 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 920, 89 S.Ct. 1771, 23 L.Ed.2d 237 (1969).

Tampa also contends that the administrative law judge improperly considered the testimony of Dr. Rubio, Duran’s major witness. For this contention Tampa relies on United States Steel Corp. v. Lamp, 436 F.2d 1256 (6th Cir. 1970). Lamp is a case involving a seaman’s death and disability claims in which the appellate court ruling, grounded in the common law rules of evidence, reversed the district court’s admission of testimony from a psychiatrist based solely upon a short interview made with a view toward the litigation. Lamp is inapplicable to the present case because 33 U.S.C. § 923(a) explicitly provides that the compensation proceedings under this Act shall not be bound by common law or even statutory rules of evidence. It was not improper to admit the testimony of Dr. Rubio.

Finally, Tampa contends that psychological disabilities (especially conversion reactions which depend upon substantial predisposition to this kind of neurosis), should not be considered recoverable injuries under the Act. Similar disabilities, however, have previously been allowed. Urban Land Institute v. Garrell, 346 F.Supp. 699 (D.D.C.1972). In addition, psychological disabilities are recoverable under almost all state workmen’s compensation laws. See 1 Larson, Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 42.22 (1973). In view of the policy of this Act to resolve doubtful questions of coverage in the claimant’s favor, we do not find that the conclusion of the administrative law judge allowing recovery for the disability caused by the “conversion reaction” was erroneous. Friend v. Britton, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 139, 220 F.2d 820, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 836, 76 S.Ct. 72, 100 L.Ed. 745 (1955); See Young & Co. v. Shea, 404 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 920, 89 S.Ct. 1771, 23 L.Ed.2d 237 (1969).

Since the factual conclusions by the administrative law judge are supported by substantial evidence and since psychological disabilities are recoverable under the Act, the petition to review the order of the Benefits Review Board is denied and the order is

AFFIRMED.