Nitschke v. Coastal Tank Cleaning

310 F. App'x 183 (9th Cir. 2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 26, 2009

Summary

The Ninth Circuit denied Gary Nitschke’s pro se petition for review of a Benefits Review Board decision affirming an administrative law judge’s finding that he had not established that his back, neck, or ankle injuries were related to a fall aboard the U.S.S. Nimitz. The court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to give little weight to one physician’s opinion, and stated that the unpublished disposition was not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Bybee; Callahan; Scannlain
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
January 26, 2009
Procedural posture
Gary Nitschke petitioned for review of a final order of the United States Department of Labor Benefits Review Board affirming an administrative law judge's decision that Nitschke failed to establish that his back, neck, and ankle injuries were related to his fall into a tank.
Standard of review
The court reviews the Benefits Review Board's decisions for errors of law and adherence to the substantial-evidence standard. It will not disturb factual findings supported by substantial evidence, particularly where witness credibility is involved.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Gary Nitschke v. Coastal Tank Cleaning
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

workers compensationjudicial review of agency actionstandard of reviewappellate procedureadministrative law

Practice areas

workers compensationadministrative lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Benefits Review Board properly concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge's finding that Nitschke failed to establish that his back, neck, and ankle injuries were related to his fall.
  2. Whether the administrative law judge erred by giving little weight to Dr. O'Neill's medical opinion.

Holdings

  1. The administrative law judge did not err in according little weight to Dr. O'Neill's medical opinion because the opinion was contradicted by other medical testimony and was not based on a comprehensive review of Nitschke's medical records.
  2. The Benefits Review Board properly concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge's findings, and the petition for review was denied.

Key quotations

The ALJ’s decision to accord Dr. O’Neill’s medical opinion little weight was not contrary to “the clear preponderance of the evidence” or “inherently incredible or patently unreasonable.” (310 F. App'x at 183)
The ALJ was not bound to accept the opinion of Dr. O’Neill. (310 F. App'x at 183)

Factual background

Nitschke fell approximately 20 feet into a tank on the U.S.S. Nimitz on January 25, 1990. He claimed that injuries to his back, neck, and ankles resulted from the fall. The administrative law judge gave little weight to Dr. O'Neill's medical opinion because she did not treat Nitschke until a year after the fall and did not base her opinions on a comprehensive review of his medical records, while her testimony was contradicted by Drs. Brooks and Kay.

Procedural history

An administrative law judge found that Nitschke had not established a causal relationship between his injuries and the January 25, 1990 fall. The Benefits Review Board affirmed, and Nitschke petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…