913 F.3d 921
9th Cir.2019Background
- Abdelmeged worked as a linguist in Iraq for Global Linguist Solutions supporting the U.S. military and returned to the U.S. nearly two years before filing a Defense Base Act (DBA) claim alleging PTSD and resulting inability to earn former wages.
- He filed a workers’ compensation claim under the Defense Base Act, and after two ALJ hearings the Benefits Review Board found him totally disabled due to a psychiatric condition developed from or aggravated by his employment in Iraq.
- The Benefits Review Board awarded compensation effective from the date he returned from Iraq.
- Employer Global Linguist Solutions and insurer Zurich petitioned for review in the court of appeals challenging the Board’s decision and certain procedural jurisdictional issues.
- The Ninth Circuit addressed both (1) the proper venue for filing DBA appeals and (2) whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding of disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue for DBA petitions for review | Appeals should follow Pearce dictum and be filed in circuit where ALJ is located | Appeals must be filed in the circuit where the district director (office of the deputy commissioner) is located | Venue controlled by location of the district director; file in circuit of district director |
| Whether ALJ’s disability finding is supported by substantial evidence | Abdelmeged contends his testimony and treating psychiatrist support disability beginning Nov 2009 | Employer points to other medical records and unemployment benefits as conflicting evidence | Substantial evidence supports ALJ: credible testimony, treating psychiatrist opinion, inability to earn wages justify disability finding |
| Reliance on treating psychiatrist | Treating psychiatrist’s opinion accurately ties condition to employment and incapacity | Employer argues the psychiatrist did not consider all records and other evidence undermines opinion | ALJ reasonably relied on treating psychiatrist; omissions did not negate opinion and were consistent with record |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearce v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 603 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1979) (discussed venue for DBA appeals; dictum about ALJ location)
- Hice v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 156 F.3d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (holds appeals should be filed in circuit of district director)
- Stevens v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 909 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1990) (statutory definition of disability under LBW schemes)
- General Constr. Co. v. Castro, 401 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard on substantial evidence review)
- Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994) (evidentiary standard for weighing claimant evidence)