United States Ninth Circuit

In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirming an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) grant of disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is granted in part where: 1) the mere fact that an expert witness talked with a party's lawyer and then altered his or her opinion language, though it might be considered relevant, did not require a factfinder to find that expert witness was other than credible; and 2) the ALJ's finding of the maximum medical improvement date was not supported by substantial evidence. However, the petition is denied in part where: 1) the ALJ's finding that petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating prejudice was supported by substantial evidence, and respondent's late notice was properly excused; and 2) respondent's stroke qualified as a compensable injury under the Longshore Act.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/22/2010
• Published 06/22/2010

Judges

• Before DOROTHY W. NELSON and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges, and JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• James P. Aleccia, Aleccia, Conner & Socha, Long Beach, CA, for the petitioners.


• For Appellees:
  
• Joshua T. Gillelan II, Longshore Claimants' National Law Center, Washington, DC, and Steven M. Birnbaum, San Rafael, CA, for the respondent.