BRB No. 96-1319


ARTHONIA PUGH                           )
                                        )
          Claimant-Petitioner           )
                                        ) 
     v.                                 )
                                        )
ROBERT E. PATE, FORMER                  )    DATE ISSUED:   06/24/1997    
        PRESIDENT, PATE STEVEDORE       )
COMPANY OF MOBILE,                      )
INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION             )
IN BANKRUPTCY                           )
                                        )
          Employer-Respondent           )    DECISION and ORDER


     Appeal of the Decision and Order of C. Richard Avery, Administrative Law
     Judge, United States Department of Labor.

     Mitchell G. Lattof, Sr. (Lattof & Lattof, P.C.), Mobile, Alabama, for
     claimant.  
     Before: HALL, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, SMITH and McGRANERY,
     Administrative Appeals Judges.

     PER CURIAM:

     Claimant appeals the Decision and Order (94-LHC-2562) of Administrative Law
Judge C. Richard Avery denying benefits 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).  

     Claimant worked for various stevedoring companies in the 1940's and 1950's,
and for various construction companies from the 1950's to 1983.  Claimant, however,
worked for employer as an operator of a cherry picker and forklift in 1966 for
about six hours loading vessels on the docks in Pensacola, Florida.[1]   Claimant alleged that while operating the cherry
picker and forklift he was exposed to loud noise and suffers a hearing loss as a
result of the loud noise.  Claimant testified that no ear protection was provided
by employer and that the noise levels and the equipment used were similar to those
he experienced while working for other stevedore companies in Mobile, Alabama.  On
April 3, 1993, an audiological examination was performed on claimant which revealed
that claimant suffered from a zero percent hearing loss under the American Medical
Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.   However, the
audiologist found that the results were consistent with a hearing loss due to noise
exposure and that claimant would benefit from an amplification device. 
Consequently, claimant filed this claim for medical benefits under the Act on April
8, 1993. 

     The administrative law judge denied claimant's claim, stating he is unwilling
to project a 1993 audiogram on claimant's brief six hour employment with employer
in 1966.  The administrative law judge found that the employment was too remote in
time to the results of the audiogram, and thus that there is no rational connection
between the length of employment, a mere six hours, and the development of
claimant's present hearing impairment first discovered almost 30 years later. 
Consequently, the administrative law judge denied the claim for medical benefits,
concluding that employer is not responsible for any hearing loss claimant may now
experience.  

     On appeal, claimant challenges the administrative law judge's denial of
medical benefits.  Employer has not responded to claimant's appeal.

     After consideration of claimant's contentions on appeal and the administrative
law judge's decision in light of the record evidence, we affirm the administrative
law judge's finding that there is no rational connection between the length of
claimant's employment with employer, six hours, and any contribution to the
development of claimant's present unrateable hearing impairment discovered almost
30 years later. See generally Port of Portland v. Director, OWCP, 932 F.2d
836, 24 BRBS 137 (CRT) (9th Cir. 1991).  On the facts of this case, we agree with
the administrative law judge that the relationship between claimant's exposure to
loud noise for six hours while working for employer 30 years ago is too attenuated
to hold employer liable for medical benefits for claimant's unrateable hearing
loss.  Moreover, claimant was not audiologically examined until 30 years after the
six hour exposure, and in this 30-year time period following the noise exposure
with employer, he worked in the construction industry in what he admitted were
noisy conditions. See Decision and Order at 3; Cl. Ex. 8.  Consequently, we
affirm the administrative law judge's denial of medical benefits.

     Accordingly, the administrative law judge's Decision and Order denying medical
benefits 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)     Pate Stevedore is now in bankruptcy.  Consequently, the case proceeded against the former president of the company,
Robert E. Pate.
 Back to Text

To Top of Document