Skip to page content
Benefits Review Board
Bookmark and Share





                             BRB No. 93-914

JOHN MICHAEL                            )
                                        )
          Claimant-Petitioner           )
                                        )
     v.                                 )
                                        )
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION            )    DATE ISSUED:   05/26/1995
                                        )
          Self-Insured                  )
          Employer-Respondent           )
                                        )
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'            )
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,                  )
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT                )
OF LABOR                                )
          Respondent                    )    DECISION and ORDER

     Appeal of the Decision and Order on Remand - Awarding Benefits of
     Anthony J. Iacobo, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of
     Labor.

     Stephen C. Embry and Timothy C. Spayne (Embry & Neusner), Groton,
     Connecticut, for claimant.

     Edward J. Murphy, Jr. (Murphy and Beane), Boston, Massachusetts, for
     self-insured employer.

     Karen B. Kracov (Thomas S. Williamson, Jr., Solicitor of Labor; Carol
     DeDeo, Associate Solicitor; Janet R. Dunlop, Counsel for Longshore),
     Washington, D.C., for the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation
     Programs, United States Department of Labor.

     Before:  SMITH, DOLDER and McGRANERY, Administrative Appeals Judges.

     PER CURIAM:

     Claimant appeals the Decision and Order on Remand - Awarding Benefits (90-LHC-3220) of Administrative Law Judge Anthony J. Iacobo 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, Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965); 33 U.S.C.
§921(b)(3). 

     Claimant filed a claim under the Act for a work-related monaural hearing loss. 
In a Decision and Order dated April 8, 1991, the administrative law judge found
that claimant's monaural hearing loss is not related to his employment and thus
denied claimant's request for benefits.  Claimant appealed this decision to the
Board, which reversed the administrative law judge's decision and remanded the case
to the administrative law judge for entry of an award of benefits and for
consideration of employer's entitlement to Section 8(f) relief, 33 U.S.C.
§908(f). Michael v. General Dynamics Corp., BRB No. 91-1239 (Sept. 17,
1992) (unpublished).  In a Decision and Order on Remand issued December 22, 1992,
the administrative law judge awarded claimant compensation, pursuant to Section
8(c)(13)(B), 33 U.S.C. §908(c)(13)(B)(1988), for a 65.6 percent monaural
hearing loss, which the administrative law judge converted to a 10.93 percent
binaural hearing loss, pursuant to the American Medical Association Guides to
the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.  Additionally, employer was awarded
relief pursuant to Section 8(f) of the Act.

     Claimant appealed this award of benefits, contending that compensation for a
monaural hearing loss should be awarded pursuant to Section 8(c)(13)(A), 33 U.S.C.
§908(c)(13)(A)(1988), of the Act.  

     In the time since claimant filed his brief in the instant case, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, within whose jurisdiction the case
arises, issued its decision in Rasmussen v. General Dynamics Corp., 993 F.2d
1014, 27 BRBS 17 (CRT) (2d Cir. 1993).  In Rasmussen, the court held that
claimants who suffer from a monaural impairment should be compensated under Section
8(c)(13)(A) of the Act. Rasmussen, 993 F.2d at 1016-1017, 27 BRBS at 22-23
(CRT).  Thereafter, employer filed a motion to remand the instant case to the
administrative law judge for entry of an order consistent with the court's decision
in Rasmussen.  Both claimant and the Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, responded to employer's motion, stating that they had no
objection to the case's being remanded to the administrative law judge.

     Given that all parties are in agreement that the case should be remanded to
the administrative law judge for the entry of an order consistent with
Rasmussen, we hereby grant employer's motion and remand this case to the
administrative law judge.[1] 

     SO ORDERED.

                         
                                                                        

                         ROY P. SMITH
                         Administrative Appeals Judge



                                                                        

                         NANCY S. DOLDER
                         Administrative Appeals Judge




                                                                        

                         REGINA C. McGRANERY
                         Administrative Appeals Judge                        

To Top of Document

Footnotes.


1)We note that the delay in issuing this Order was caused by the unavailability of the record, which was received on April 6, 1995. Back to Text

NOTE: This is an UNPUBLISHED LHCA Document.

To Top of Document