BRB No. 97-1577

ROOSEVELT ANTHONY                       )
                                        )
          Claimant-Petitioner           )    DATE ISSUED:   07/27/1998    
 
                                        )
     v.                                 )
                                        )
I.T.O. CORPORATION OF                   )
BALTIMORE, INCORPORATED                 )
                                        )    
          Self-Insured                  )
          Employer-Respondent           )    DECISION and ORDER

     Appeal of the Decision and Order of Sheldon R. Lipson, Administrative
     Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.

     Michael C. Eisenstein, Baltimore, Maryland, for claimant.

     David P. Chaisson and Robert J. Lynott (Thomas & Libowitz, P.A.),
     Baltimore, Maryland, for self-insured employer.

     Before:  HALL, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, SMITH and McGRANERY,
     Administrative Appeals Judges.

     PER CURIAM:

     Claimant appeals the Decision and Order (94-LHC-2089) of Administrative Law
Judge Sheldon R. Lipson rendered on a claim filed pursuant to the provisions of the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §901
et seq. (the Act).  We must affirm the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the administrative law judge which are rational, supported by substantial
evidence, and in accordance with law. O'Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls
Associates, Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965); 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(3).  

     On October 1, 1992, claimant, while working as a grain man for employer,
sustained an injury to the little finger on his left, non-dominant hand.  Claimant,
who underwent two separate operations on his hand, subsequently returned to work
without restrictions.  Employer voluntarily paid claimant temporary partial
disability compensation from November 11, 1992 through July 8, 1993, as well as
medical benefits.  Claimant thereafter filed a claim for additional benefits under
the Act.

     In his Decision and Order, the administrative law judge found, inter
alia, that claimant had returned to his regular work, and was therefore not
totally disabled.  The administrative law judge next awarded claimant permanent
partial disability benefits pursuant to Section 8(c)(3) of the Act, 33 U.S.C.
§908(c)(3), for a five percent disability to the left hand.

     On appeal, claimant argues that the administrative law judge erred in
determining the extent of claimant's disability.  Claimant also alleges that he was
prejudiced by the administrative law judge's delay in issuing his Decision and
Order following the formal hearing.  Employer responds, urging affirmance.

     It is well-established that the claimant bears the burden of establishing the
nature and extent of any disability sustained as a result of a work-related injury.
See Anderson v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 22 BRBS 20 (1989); Trask v.
Lockheed Shipbuilding & Const. Co., 17 BRBS 56 (1980).    In the instant case,
the administrative law judge, in awarding claimant compensation based upon a five
percent impairment rating to the hand, credited the opinion of Dr. Gordon,
claimant's treating physician, over that of Dr. Rosenbaum, because Dr. Rosenbaum
was not the treating physician and neither documented his examination notes nor
appeared to be familiar with the American Medical Association Guides to the
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides).[1]   The administrative law judge further noted that Dr. Gordon, unlike
Dr. Rosenbaum, opined that claimant would definitely not function without his
injured finger, since that finger still has function.

     Initially, our review reveals that the administrative law judge committed no
error in relying upon the opinion of Dr. Gordon rather than that of Dr. Rosenbaum
in determining the extent of claimant's left hand impairment.  In adjudicating a
claim, it is well-established that an administrative law judge is entitled to weigh
the medical evidence and draw his own inferences from it, see Wheeler v.
Interocean Stevedoring, Inc., 21 BRBS 33 (1988), and he is not bound to accept
the opinion or theory of any particular witness. See Todd Shipyards Corp. v.
Donovan, 300 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1962).  As claimant states in his brief, the
Act does not require impairment ratings based on medical opinions using the
criteria of the AMA Guides except in cases involving compensation for
hearing loss and voluntary retirees, see 33 U.S.C. §§908(c)(13),
902(10); Pimpinella v. Universal Maritime Service, Inc., 27 BRBS 154 (1993). 
Thus, an administrative law judge is not bound by any particular standard or
formula in determining the extent of disability sustained by claimant.  Rather, the
administrative law judge may consider a variety of medical opinions and
observations in assessing the extent of a claimant's disability under the schedule.
See Pimpinella, 27 BRBS at 159-60; Mazze v. Frank J. Holleran, Inc.,
9 BRBS 1053 (1978).  In the instant case, Dr. Gordon's opinion that claimant
suffers a five percent permanent partial disability to his left hand constitutes
substantial evidence to support the administrative law judge's ultimate
determination that claimant sustained a five percent permanent partial disability
to that hand. 

     Next, we reject claimant's contention that the administrative law judge erred
by failing to base claimant's scheduled award on the economic effects of his hand
injuries in addition to his medical impairment. The schedule is the exclusive
remedy for permanent partial disability to the members listed therein. See
Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, OWCP, 449 U.S. 268, 14 BRBS 363 (1980). 
Awards under the schedule are based on medical impairment and economic loss is not
considered in determining a disability rating under the schedule. Gilchrist v.
Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 135 F.3d 915, 32 BRBS 15 (CRT) (4th
Cir. 1998).  Accordingly, as the administrative law judge's decision to credit the
opinion of Dr. Gordon is rational, we affirm his award of permanent partial
disability compensation for a five percent disability to claimant's left hand. 

     Lastly, we reject claimant's contention that the administrative law judge's
decision should be vacated because of the three year lapse between the date of the
formal hearing and the issuance of the administrative law judge's Decision and
Order.  Claimant has not shown that this delay resulted in prejudice to him. See
Garvey Grain Co. v. Director, OWCP, 639 F.2d 366, 12 BRBS 821 (7th Cir. 1981);
Dean v. Marine Terminals Corp., 15 BRBS 394 (1983).

     Accordingly, the Decision and Order of the administrative law judge is
affirmed.

     SO ORDERED.



                                                                   
                         BETTY JEAN HALL, Chief
                         Administrative Appeals Judge



                                                                   
                         ROY P. SMITH
                         Administrative Appeals Judge



                                                                   
                         REGINA C. McGRANERY
                         Administrative Appeals Judge

To Top of Document

Footnotes.
 1)Dr. Gordon opined that, following the criteria set forth
in the AMA Guides, claimant suffered a 46 percent impairment to the
left little finger, and that this equates to a loss of five percent of the
left hand.  EX-2A.  Dr. Rosenbaum, who initially found a 100 percent
impairment to the left fifth finger, which was compatible with a 10 percent
permanent impairment of the left hand, then took into account claimant's
pain, loss of function and other factors and determined that claimant had
an overall rating of 22 percent permanent impairment of his left hand.  CX-5.
 Back to Text

To Top of Document