Background
Calvin Chaffers worked as a painter, paint quality inspector, and paint supervisor at Jeffboat’s shipyard in Jeffersonville, Indiana from 2005 to 2017. His duties exposed him to fumes and particles from toxic paints, paint thinner, anti-freeze, welding, gouging, sandblasting, and charcoal slag abrasive products. After being laid off in 2017, Chaffers filed a claim for workers’ compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, alleging that these occupational exposures caused breathing difficulties including COPD and emphysema.
At a formal ALJ hearing held in August 2021, the parties presented dueling expert opinions. Chaffers’ expert, Dr. Ankit Gupta, opined to a reasonable degree of medical probability that workplace exposures caused Chaffers’ emphysema and contributed to his disability, rating his impairment at 14% under the AMA Guides. Jeffboat’s expert, Dr. William Frazier, disputed that Chaffers had any diagnosed pulmonary disease and suggested his breathing symptoms were more likely attributable to other conditions such as an undiagnosed cardiac problem — but notably conceded that long-term unprotected exposure to the chemicals at issue can cause lung disease, while declining to explain why those exposures did not affect Chaffers specifically.
The ALJ found Chaffers permanently partially disabled and awarded benefits, crediting Dr. Gupta’s more fully explained and literature-supported opinion over Dr. Frazier’s selectively reasoned one. The Office of the District Director separately awarded Chaffers’ counsel $4,695.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs — a reduction of more than one-third from the amount sought. The Benefits Review Board affirmed both decisions, and Jeffboat petitioned the Seventh Circuit for review.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit denied the petition and affirmed the Benefits Review Board under the deferential substantial evidence standard. The court held that the ALJ properly applied the Act’s burden-shifting framework: Chaffers established a prima facie case triggering the Section 20(a) presumption of work-relatedness, Jeffboat rebutted that presumption, and then Chaffers satisfied his burden of persuasion on the whole record. The court declined to reweigh the competing expert opinions, finding the ALJ’s preference for Dr. Gupta’s explanation over Dr. Frazier’s was rational and supported by substantial evidence, particularly given Dr. Frazier’s failure to explain why the admittedly harmful chemical exposures did not cause or contribute to Chaffers’ condition.
The court also rejected Jeffboat’s argument that Chaffers was required to prove a specific diagnosed pulmonary disease, reaffirming that “injury” under the Act broadly encompasses any physical harm — including the coughing and shortness of breath Chaffers experienced. Similarly, the court rejected the argument that pre-existing conditions or smoking history precluded recovery, noting that under the aggravation rule it is enough that workplace exposures contributed to a worsening of symptoms. The ALJ’s classification of Chaffers’ disability as permanent and partial, based on Dr. Gupta’s 14% AMA impairment rating, was also upheld.
Jeffboat’s challenge to the attorneys’ fee award was held waived. Jeffboat failed to submit the underlying fee petition materials to the record even after a court order to do so, and it cited no legal authority in support of its objections, running afoul of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A). The court declined to reach the merits and noted that the District Director had already exercised discretion by reducing the fee award by more than one-third.
Key Takeaways
- Under Section 20(a) of the LHWCA, a claimant need only produce “some evidence” — a light burden of production, not persuasion — to trigger the presumption that an injury is work-related; credibility and contradictory evidence are not weighed at the prima facie stage.
- “Injury” under the LHWCA is construed broadly to cover any physical harm, including symptomatic breathing impairment; a claimant need not prove a specific named disease or diagnosis.
- The aggravation rule permits recovery even where pre-existing conditions or lifestyle factors (such as smoking) contributed to the claimant’s condition, so long as workplace exposures caused or contributed to a worsening of symptoms.
- An employer’s expert who acknowledges that the relevant chemical exposures can cause lung disease but fails to explain why those exposures did not affect the claimant creates a logical gap that an ALJ may reasonably use to discount that opinion.
- Failure to supply relevant record materials and cite supporting legal authority in an appellate brief results in waiver of the argument, even for fee disputes.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the breadth of worker protections under the LHWCA and the difficulty employers face in overturning benefits determinations on appeal. By affirming that the “harm” threshold for the Section 20(a) presumption is low, that claimants need not prove a specific diagnosis, and that the aggravation rule covers contribution to symptom worsening, the court signals that ALJs have substantial latitude to credit claimants’ medical experts — particularly when the employer’s expert acknowledges hazardous conditions yet offers no account of why those conditions did not injure this particular worker.
The waiver ruling on attorneys’ fees also carries a practical lesson for maritime and longshore employers and insurers: fee challenges must be supported by the actual billing records and pertinent legal authority, or they will not survive appellate review. Given that the District Director had already substantially reduced the fee award, Jeffboat’s undeveloped challenge on appeal served only to underscore the procedural misstep.