# Petition — E-Systems, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_0388%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1983 - **Citation:** 464 U.S. 956 ## Text AUG 30 1983 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1983 E-Systems, INC... and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. Petitioners, wa DireECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. and HowarD R. CLYMER., Respondents. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Davip W. TOWNEND DeHay & BLANCHARD 2300 South Tower Plaza of the Americas Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 651-7000 Attorney for Petitioners i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether there is any statutory requirement under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for a claimant. who is permitted to recover on 4 theory that the employment conditions of diet and climate aggravated pre- existing diabetes and hypertension, to prove the occurrence of an accidental injury or occupational illness which arose out of and was caused by the employment. (33 U.S.C. §902(2)). > Whether the statutory presumption under 33 U.S. §920(a) can properly be applied in the claimant's favor. when there was substantial evidence of record before the Court below to rebut the statutory presumption and affirm the findings of the Administrative Law Judge and Benefits Review Board that the claimant's diabetes and hypertension did not arise from and were not caused by the employment and that the claimant failed to prove disability. 3. Whether the Court of Appeals may permit recovery based upon a claim of aggravation of pre-existing hypertension and diabetes when such claim was not asserted by the claimant who contended an occupational illness under the Act which was denied by the Administrative Law Judge and Benefits Review Board. (33 U.S.C. §902(2)). 4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the findings and decision of the Administrative Law Judge that the claim under ihe Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was barred by the failure to comply with the thirty (30) day notice requirement and one year statute of limitations requirement under the Act, 33 U.S.C. §§912(a). 913(a). il PARTIES BELOW In the Court below. the Petitioners were Respondents. The Respondent Howard Clymer was Petitioner in the Court below and Respondent Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, was Respondent in the Court below. see TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORTON FIO IIN axce cacascediens 0cciecavescesvurbeusensencacsatpucs i ig REESE Gre SRCERA OPE ES heen eM eee nyse Te rT OPINIONS AND JUDGMENT BELOW ..........0ccccccccccsecsccccccceces 2 NEI so ec tcsicsecdtstas vata nakninirisivcieiinadsistineiaasbens 2 TT OR FI I inc cls calba vances deasecassesecnee ss aeseuieeinierees 2 SPRAIN IE TIE Go i diced sd nuanadovscsracsqeavuveinacciecsonay es 5 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT...........cscccscsescseessesceces 9 1. The decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit below is in direct conflict with the rule of law of U.S. Industries / Federal Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, U.S. 5 He eats LSA CR eh hsivssasesisnces 9 Il. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has decided an important federal question which has not been, but should be, settled by this Court........ 12 III. To insure the proper scope of judicial review in accordance with established Supreme Court MSM 5s 21's) £icis4s Gracksbthssaunseatlbaeti cieiassasniaverene 15 ars ET” RRR a Pa SRS eyo 0 DATE Ts Wo rae aR CPLA SCRE Oh ETE 16 APPENDIX A — Court of Appeals Decision Denying Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En UNE oie cacedds «snus acsteleb orotic dees uialcsmntaniboidadehtieies A-| APPENDIX B— Court of Appeals Decision ..............000000008 B- | APPENDIX C — Benefits Review Board Decision................ C-| APPENDIX D — Administrative Law Judge’s Decision........ D-| APPENDIX E — Form LS/203 Claim for Compensation...... E-1 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES: American Stevedores, Inc. v. Salzano, 538 F.2d 933 ae iis CTE catascadcdhiees capssana hedededeakdacinpensticasteebedvenss 14 Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Ass'n, 390 U.S. 459 RIED sisaeha/ts CalcrawanVoukdes peasashadaans his hypertension and diabetes. Or. Jonn North, nowever, testified that neither of these conditions say de attrioutes to slaizant'’s occupation, geograpnic location, work environgent or diet. In Dr. North's opinion, claimant would nave developed tne same impairments nad ne remained in Texas. He denied that tne tanual labor required of claimant in nis jos aggravates nese soncitions. Moreover, Dr. Nertn consicerec claimant's age, over- weignt, anc meavy alconol use as factors aggravating mis conditions. In a detailed and well reasoned opinion, the acministrative Law judge found tnat employer nad reduttec tne Section 20(a) presumption of causal connection. The administrative law jucge credited the testimony of Dr. Nortn and fount tnat claisant's nypertension and é¢iabetes sellitus would have occurrec irrespec- tive of nis employment. Moreover, tne administrative law judge found that these conditions were not aggravatec Sy claisans’s employment, work environment or ¢iet. He credited testiszony ‘nat ——— - employer proviced cafeteria-style meals, designe¢ to approxisate tne American-type diet, that special food items sould be prepares for workers at tneir request, and tmat it was possiole for individuals to ¢o tneir own cooking. -i- C4 erar.ner tia« ar sedica "ss 4 Dann Be any 5 «* evicenrce CBiniSe- the a evicen « scge's denial connection. «a6 al . classac Re adaisistrative o * we affirs ec ausaliy ‘ - otner 0 - — ~ee PL Pos wast. * ° a] ” »’ ’ , > no ” ‘ “* = o °. * oo ao o o ~« > - , aa fe - a - @ Lid a ” ” —« ad . . « * " ( @est Capy Available C-§ beccddiccodco « SA - " -* -, ‘ - "« ae} -* a J 1 Ot ee ee he hb eh me ee ee ‘ Bere: Fevew Boat U.S. Department of Labor een wasngier SC 20008 A @ciSion Dy tne Benefics Review Scard Secomes final after 6° days from tne date sucn Sec.sion is issued cnless a PetLtion requesting Tevaew Nas Seen filed in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. 33 U.$.€. §9223(e) BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR NO. 79-766 HOWARD CLIMER Claimant-Petitioner v. £-SYSTEMS acc LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY A et et et et eS Zaployer/Carrier- Responcents ) DISSENTING OPINIC MILLER, Administrative Appeals Judge, dissenting: I ¢issent from the saiority's denial of >enefits to claimant. The record ices not support ay colleagues’ statement that *(t)he testisony of Dr. North sot only constitutes sudstantial evicence to rebut the presumption, but also constitutes substantial evi- dence to support the administrative law judge's finding ‘hat claimant's condition is not causally related to his employment.* Majority Opinion, slip op. at 5. For the reasons stated hereis, I would hold that employer has not rebutted the presumption of compensability mandated dy Section 20(a), 33 9.$.¢. $g20(a). Section 20(a) provides that "(iln any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this Act it shall be presumed, in the absence of Sudstantial evidence to the cone , . trary -- (a) That the claim comes within the provisions of this C-8 Act." 33 U.S.C. §920(a). This presusption finds its basis is She humanitarian nature of the Acc. Leycen ¥. Capital Peclaza- tion Corp., 2 BRBS 24, 27, BRB Nos. 74Sasis in me¢ical probability ‘hat sucn conditions as neat, perspiration, the specific Veceabder , de $/ An employer must mnow of the relationsnio of the enmoloy- vert fo an intury or iliness in order for the knowledce require- ments of Sections '2/¢) ana 3O(f) of tme Act to be soolied acainst te ewolcyer. Strachan Shisong Company, et a1 5. willie Dev.s ong Oirector, Ow ar) ; RAS fof (Sem Car. 1978). Ais cese does rot involve en’ incorrect discnosis of 8 OBhySicien wAiemh would, if effect, ¢ 1 the stetute of lieie tations. If tre disanosis were incorrect anc tre Claieant relies uoon st, then the one year statute of limitations coes rot beain to rum until the claimant “reelized, or smouls "eve first resle- ized, that Ais silent was jod related.” Sun Smisduilding and Ory Dock Company wv. Bowman, $07 F.26 46 "3rd Cir. i ; Pillsbury +. United Eng.neering 6o., 342 U.S. 197 (1952); Stanesi v. Massey, Suors; washington +». Cooser nam egeorin svuors; Bernice Jacmwson v. Navy Exchance Service center ane -ommurit) Union insurance Company, 9 SRES O37, nO. 235 ‘Deceeber 22, i978). fa ) In view of the foregoina, | conclude anc fing treat Cleisent became “ewaere, of By the exercise of ressonreble ciligence smrould meve deen ewere,” Sesec upcn 8 srevfessiorel opinion of @ secicel doctor on December 7, 1976 (‘Claimant's Exmidit 4), treat me med intermittent lebile Aypertenrsion and, conmseaquent!,, tre Section 12/8) and i3(a) time liwitations startesc to run et tret time (1.@. SOecemoer 7, 1976) I further find thet Claieant’s claim for workmen's compensation penefits on Auveust 2%, +978 wes mot timely filed. 7 However, 889u%iNG, ersosuvenco, thet tre cleie "erein was t.mely filed, § will now consider whetner Clai:waent’s “yoertension anc Giedetes seliitus are comcenssdie cisadilities uncer the Act. Basec upon the totality of the revorc, I coneluce anc fined that Claimant's dciebetes sellitus was irst rescrted in writing by Or. Ounn on Apres] 13, 1978. On Mecember 7, '976, at which time Claimant's mycertension was first diagnoses, it was aise reportec that Claimant's routine ladoretcr, exs@inations, €EC6 anc EEG were normal. I also scceot the ciseqresis by Or. YV. Zaigrserf, on Fedrusry 9, 1978, tre Claimant mad essential! Mypertension, @yocerdial strain, sliomt eirrmosis of the liver from alcomol intake and was sverwe.ant at 219 sounds (Claimant's Exemidit 7). At this time Claimant was oleces on @ strict diet - - "no fats, 20 saits, so spices, no sleone!.”* I saeceot thre @.,eancsis of Or. Sunn tmat Cla.mant rad diabetes baesec uoor 8 OMPy»sicel examination on February 27, 1978 Claimant's Exunidit 10). Gm Marcnh 17, 1978 Claimant advises sedical sersonnel at Presdyterian Hosoitel of Osllss tnat re rac intentionally lost twenty-two Sounds while working in Israel. Pesconcents’ Exni- 7/ 1 am aware that an employee need not notify mis employer of a Compensable iniury in accordance with Section 12/8) of the Act "until he knows of reascnadl» should know that he “ss ree ce.sed an intury, |Orising in the course of emolor,ment, trat disables hie from future employment.” Bath iron works Corse. ret.on and Commercial Union Assurance Company +. saves ©. Galen and Director, OWCP, 605 F.26 S83, 10 HRMS 86% (tet Pir. i979), D-16 -~l6- Dits $7). Therefore, i find treat Cleimant, while workinra if Isreel, weiches ss such a8 232 pounds, weight anich wes entirels too Pesevy for Ais Bodily frame (See Clainart ' t pPotoarson of the Clei@ant end others in front of ¢t Mission). 2 secept the opinions of Or. Rooert &. North, an eminent snecielist if cars.sovesculer end internal medic.nre, eho w8s Subtected to excellent, thorougm end seereninag cross-ervaminc’ ion era who testifies fortmrrigntliy treat Cla.sant's intermittent Mypertension and eile disbdetes sellitus were ot enplo,sent- related end could rot be attributed to Ais Gecupetion, Mis diet, gecorsonricel location of work environment, treat me (Or. Nortr Gicd met find any prysicel isspeirment which would srecluce fis return to Fis previous employment, thet disdetes sellitus is an somerited diseese, tmat Claimant's Mypertension «nd aild diedetes were under control By diet end medicetion, trast Pigh Bisco oressure ser se 18 "Ot 8 disease anc coes "ot cwuse Cisadility, thet Ayoertension end cgisbetes become clinicaelis saovarent 1° *".Ccle-ace y»ears anc trat leiment even if Fe "50 remeires if Soutm Teses wsculd ave sevelocec the same orsbless at te sare time. becouse “(ibn tmet resoect, it 'S Ais sestiny.” ! siso acceot Or. Yortn's CifPion thet sdequete oMrysical setivsits ane exercise sere vetrocs used to control Pyoertens.c% ant 4.adetes mellitus. Therefore, Cla.eant’s senual laedor 913ht seruall. "ase med 8 tmersceut.c effect. instesd of tne sllecec sepil.'sat.°7G oF eacravetiosg effect claises merein. I else scceot the disanosis that Claimant Pad extrese enziety end thet this condition, tocetmer with “16 family orcd- lems, and isolated living, tne I.R8.S. sudit anc sersonsi living mebits, escecislly tne excessive use of sicomhol end *:.8 cbes.ty contributed to Fis Bypertensive condition and dishetes sellitus. Furtmermore, it i8 noted tnhet Claimant's lest two attac«s occurred shile me wes sway from tne Sinesi Fieia “Mission snd if Tel Aviv, @Njorving Ais week's vacation at tne "8 & &” Fae.tity Oroviced by the Esolcyer. hile it say be merely coireicertal, | find thi18 to be most sionificant, especially in view af Bis 86MiSSi0M ana.cst interest, sf 8 Bedical Mistory recort on Maren 17, 1978, thet “Re was 8 Fesvy Crinker” But stopper two aortas ago (‘Resconcents’ Exnibit $7). I elso credit “er. Kapole'’s testimony a8 to conatruetion anc functioning of the Sinai Fielo Mission, the rature cf Claine ant’s duties there, the meals provided, the climate it tre Sires and the work environ@ent. Furtherore, | also credit “er. Fera’s testimony es to Claimant's drinking hedits while “sr. Tord was tending ber at tre lounne. I also sccept Or. Black's scoinions tnret Cisimanr’s eure} locicsal examination was coreel. I eredit the op.2ienrs cf Me. Soitzdera thet he could find no evidence of urnanis a.sease, that me could mot cetereine an eticoloay for “is ershliems i Israel enc that Cla.eant is in reasonable meait™ far s.8 ace. aware of the well-setties soctrine tmhet an eolsy- "se is” end if the workeen Pes 8 OFre-ezistin er con accelerates, agore.etec or which sanifests stself as the result of exertion incicentsl to the work required, @ compensable injury results e-en *7ouGn such exertion @8y fot rave Marses 8 person not suffering from the sarticuler infireity. J. 8. Vozzelo, Ine. v. Britton, suors, at 148. “Also, the acaravatian of the Sre-exsSting Mack coMditioM My the ‘insult’ to the Cleimant's Seck which erose wut of and in the course of P.s employment constituted isnmiury urcer the Act.” Jonn #. Basins: +. 1.7.9. Corooration of Salitisore and Liberty Mutusi Tasurance Comcar,, © Shes ‘oe, © No. reel) Sruery cf, THIET ae Fot cersuacec tmat tne recors before se contains any Such evisenrce showing ceuselit, seteeen Claimant's present problems anc Ais emolo,ment. 1, tmerefore, find treat Cla.eant suffered no compensable injury emile employed by E Systems. the Benefits Review Boars pointec sut if Lennart V. Betmrlenem Steel Corssration, $ 8898S 486, 488, sune , savticulerl, clieBina verti- cel leccers, comserssticon sust be and is Peremy cen.ed.” . fot of an oceevpeticrel cisesse i8 sotly» e@zoresses by the followsna quotsetion: "It s8 mot the intent of tris statute to ereste 8 general resltmh snsurence orcocoree. Tre sinelusion of eccupetional dgisesses is liaites to seladcies resultinea from working conditions emich ore veculier to tre calline and sre more aezercous "78F those encountered in ordinery living.” Collins «+. Laceland Arey & Air Force Excrnance Service, es 4! { 1975. Or the Pasis of the totelity of ime sedicel evidence and other record evitence and Paving ocBsersed te scemesnor of the witnesses, i find ana conelude that * jassant’s Pypertension and Giabetes mellitus were not causec, triageres, scarsvated or exacerbates Sy» Mis employment sr the wore environment. I furtmer find ane coneluce thet Cis.s@eart’s Aypertension and Giahetes wnellitus would mMawe octurres irrespective of Ais eapley- ment im the Sines anc would Pave recurred had he remained in the United States working st an secucation rer subject to the jurise- Gietion of the Act. The diabetes sellitus is the neturel oro- gression of the Claimant's ore-d.sxcesitison. To use Or. North's words, “".t's Mis sestiny.* There .¢ 0 credible evidence that Cla.rant’'s Mypertension is work-related. It 18 probably the result of Mis lenmgtmy isclation from m.s family, the 1.8.S. gudit ard Mis persoral living Pabits. Altmouon Cleimant properly seraves that the Act be interoreted libereliy, it 18 well-settied trat “slain of tne statute s8y not be disregarded under the guise of pretina it liberaliv.” E.kel v. Voris, suors, et 333; Pillsbury vw. United Engineering Co., saa U.S. 197, 19$2). Based voon the totality of tne record and tne forecoing Findinos of Fuct and Conclusions of Lew, it .8 determines treat the claim sust ne gen:izvd. As 1 Fave ruled that Claimant mas not Sustained 8 comcersahie cisebility under tne Act, Mis attorney is mot entitled to ar ettorne,y'’s fee essessed acainst the Pesponc- ents. OROER The cleie for benefits under the Longshoremen's and Haroor Workers’ Comoensation Act, a8 extencec by the OCefense Base Act, filed by Howard %. Clyser is mereby OENIED. “ved Uo fh eabe Administrative Lae Oated: Novewtsr 20, 1979 New Orleans, Lou.siane OwO:rls At.18 D-19 o- CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVIC l certify that on December 5, 1979 che foregoing Compensa- Y tion Order was fi} in che Office of the Seputy Commissioner, Lighth Districe Office and a scopy thereof was mailed on said date by certified =ail co the serties and their Aare representatives at the last xnown address of each as follows: Yowaré Clymer, «292 Colgate, Garland, Texas 5042 eTalmane ee . A "*” - ** - . “As Liberty Mutual Insurasce Company, 2530 Yalnut #111, Salles. Texas 75229 pacyer | $4a.?-insur A copy was 8180 sailed by regular mail to the following: Judge Savie Di Nard , Office of Administrative Law Judges, S. S. Separtment of Labor, Washington, 5.C. 202106 Associate Solicitor of Labor for Erployee Benefits, U. S. Separtment of Labor, Suite w-2716, NOOL, Washington, 0.C. 20210 Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, (LHWCA) ~* U. S. Separement of Labor, Washington, 0.C. 20211 Samuel Bove, Esquire, 5746 LB Freeway, Oalias, Texas 75160 Jomm Sililam Payne, Esquire, 17°90 Republic National Bank Bidg, Callas, Texas Deputy Commiss.cner Lighth Compensation Oistrict e Be tment of Labor EMPLOYMENT STANCAPDS ADMINISTRATION Office of Workers’ Compensatioa Prograzs Rev. Aug. 19 APPENDIX E OMS *toprerel Neo. 8 i. we awe of teem a Ti. Core var ome eyed vivewrers tenng he ween saree? sop yet Whew SP occupy. tease mani festationl/ 78 Tse Dies [it “Yen” sere here and when 0 reverse! — ----—- -—-' - - - Th. Caer piece owe cc cdew eas ares (Irreet oddrens, Oy, owe Name of rennel, a Sinai Suffer 7one oo, tormad, ofa) Pe ee re ee er ompered wae tang he me of Me ott dont (4 seeded, continve ce coverte) Om Jan. 30, 1978 Mr. Clymer vist Aviv Israel at which time his condition was diagnosed as rered lode ay cd tehe daa, the work environment 6 diet provided ore. 1f teeve wee elesee | Unknown, see line 24. fons of see e/ oe panel me | _ = be) AiR relied = he mor acummnneg cuasig fel whe me mopered end New 1 Seppered. Meme any sheets oF tebelertes om vol ved end teil haw they wore semlved Cire fui! dore's on of! (enters wml ah lod or conmrbuted © (he erarden, If mare spase i ted Or. Chais Feldean in Tel >ypertension & coronary in- tse ges aoe Jatoba 2 M2. Pichardscp. lex. diagnosed bis socdition J Monwe of avery Nome part as ae ~ possible diabetes; disabilitivs attributed to by the employer. (See reverse side) --— ~~ . oc? we | EMPLOYEE'S CLAla ome ) Te 1 Om PeCew ewe FOR COMCENSATION ore €@ Of weoeetes oath - . =z 1 ‘> $88 (MSTRUCTIONS Om PEVERSE C ’ Ce ee oor Somer (iene der row! gee ey P 2 . oe ‘wari festation of ais (Troe er print, f pats rif tas firse reported 1/78 4. Ceement’s addons (Member, srreet, erry, etere, 2/7 eter 6. terre vores 4202 Colgate, Garland, Texas 75042 Married ?. tee t see & tee of eee # FOC a. SECUOITY weeee 0. 56 mer cowee (one of tome Man den seer (Met reqwred by en dover doy or veel of eeedenr? Tuco — owe Aug. 1, 1929 458 34; 1109 mre OC eee -t—st— - ———— --< 1). Ge tore + “eer boge -oe » how of crete % 0-6 row 190 ware 2. Sere ond “ow poy Hieened ea ed — a _ - oe eor. , Cam Cem, — —_ ** —_* * ee foe Oe tes se 3-)1-78 — — 1h Deore ond Mow pew ererred 6 wee 4 Seeeeere (Jee le lenmpetere martes, ‘5. apered om le Gorng ogee ware! ‘ ioe } Cre Te Still off ; indefinse En7 heating Mechant - ~_ 4uratios (11 “Me,” esplere -« ltem 24) a) wend “et % Cooely ‘& ICSE RT STEERS ” wie Catena SST Ser S i rae cllewenaes. ere.) ; 6 + $24,480.00 Gr So this 10. ember of peers paw worted |%. Samter of dors eewelly worted re c.ai8 mea et =o4 weatbsiar sé. c P) Wheatley _— = a a ee see reverse ,a~ Cre ar ae mt, pe oniy” "peecial ac attention. {nscrancé carrier “coneed Assideancé without cause in “arch, 1978. FO Cee eet commen por dod by emprore!’ = bce cen out! Gecbied on esses of ane ™ 17 Were pew wemred by © ohyernren of vom once returned to U.SL | y Bree Com employer, tmmee? ire thru 3/78 | Gre 1. SS see ee | Tepe cee wee at ome copes: ses tere ag + tem og! 32. men aeerp erited 2 prmenans 6 0ab: a9, ome Or mo eee Cte. Eat (Ton wee doves 00 reverse) eh ewwrenenr? Li tor (Oovende on revere! S- = Beme 6 angers ‘Sd -aew © i eee 34 Sere of ereere | bos - cee t-Systems, Greenville Division a Early Warning System Sines woe, I” ate 0. agen 5 ge Main Greewvilie. Tense TSao) ‘a Be-eOy @ene 1 co © eemeetee = teres*s comme cat eas se ee Oo Defense Sase Act 3 A | emt ee of 0 oom - we ah --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_0388%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.