James Scotty Boudreaux v. Owensby & Kritikos, Incorporated and Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation (Board decision, June 27, 2019)

BRB final decision. This unpublished decision is not precedent. The Benefits Review Board summarily affirmed James Boudreaux's award of permanent total disability and medical benefits. Under 20 C.F.R. § 802.406, a Board decision becomes final 60 days after issuance unless a timely petition for judicial review or timely Board reconsideration request is filed. A party may request Board reconsideration within 30 days under § 802.407.

Plain-English summary

James Boudreaux's claim under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act returned to the Board after two earlier appeals. On remand, the judge entered a specific award of permanent total disability benefits from May 1, 2018, and medical benefits. Owensby & Kritikos did not challenge the award but requested summary affirmance so it could seek judicial review of an earlier Board ruling on coverage. Because the award itself was uncontested and its prior rulings controlled, the Board granted the request and affirmed the benefits award.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Summary decision under 20 C.F.R. § 802.303(b).
• Outcome: Summary affirmance granted; disability and medical benefits award affirmed.
• Key point: The employer raised no issue with the award entered on remand.

Full text (DOL BRB public release)

U.S. Department of Labor
Benefits Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001

BRB No. 19-0239
Case No. 2014-LHC-00489
OWCP No. 07-198105

JAMES SCOTTY BOUDREAUX
)
)
Claimant-Respondent
)
)
v. )
)
OWENSBY & KRITIKOS,
)
INCORPORATED
) DATE ISSUED: 06/27/2019
)
and
)
)
LOUISIANA WORKERS’
)
COMPENSATION CORPORATION
)
)
Employer/Carrier-
)
Petitioners
)
)
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
)
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
)
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
)
)
Respondent
) ORDER

Employer appeals the Decision and Order on Remand (2014-LHC-00489) of Administrative Law Judge Clement J. Kennington rendered on a claim filed pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §901 et seq., as extended by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §1331 et seq. (the OCSLA). Employer has filed a Motion for Summary Affirmance of the decision on remand. Claimant has not responded to employer’s motion, but in his response to employer’s petition for review urges affirmance of the administrative law judge’s award of benefits. The Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, consents to the issuance of a summary decision affirming the administrative law judge’s decision on remand.

This case is before the Board for the third time. In its first decision, the Board affirmed the administrative law judge’s conclusion that claimant’s claim is within the coverage of the OCSLA pursuant to Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, 565 U.S. 207, 45 BRBS 87(CRT) (2012). Boudreaux v. Owensby & Kritikos, Inc., 49 BRBS 83 (2015). The case was remanded for consideration of any remaining issues. Id. In his Decision and Order on Remand dated January 11, 2017, the administrative law judge adopted the parties’ stipulations as his “Findings of Fact.”1 In his “Order,” the administrative law judge ordered employer to carry out “authorizations and actions” in accordance with the stipulations.

In its second decision, the Board held the administrative law judge’s Decision and Order on Remand was not in accordance with law because it did not set forth a specific award of benefits to claimant. Boudreaux v. Owensby & Kritikos, Inc. [Boudreaux II], BRB Nos. 17-0256/A (July 6, 2017) (unpub.); see 33 U.S.C. §919(c); Mitri v. Global Linguist Solutions, 48 BRBS 41 (2014); 20 C.F.R. §702.348. The Board, therefore, remanded the case to the administrative law judge “for any necessary proceedings and for the entry of a specific award of benefits.” Boudreaux II, slip op. at 5.

In his Decision and Order on Remand dated January 25, 2019, the administrative law judge awarded claimant ongoing permanent total disability benefits from May 1, 2018, and medical benefits.2 On appeal, employer does not challenge these findings. Rather, it seeks to have the administrative law judge’s Decision and Order on Remand summarily affirmed so that it may appeal the Board’s first decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See 33 U.S.C. §921(c); 20 C.F.R. §802.410. Thus, as

1
On September 16, 2016, employer’s counsel informed the administrative law judge that the parties stipulated to claimant’s average weekly wage, the amount of past due benefits owed claimant, the amount due claimant with regard to his disfigurement claim, and that no other issues related to compensation or medical benefits were presently in dispute.
2
The administrative law judge also noted the parties’ stipulations that claimant was entitled to and employer has paid benefits for periods of temporary total and temporary partial disability from the date of injury through May 1, 2018, the date claimant’s work- related injuries reached maximum medical improvement. 33 U.S.C. §908(b), (e). In addition, the parties stipulated that claimant is entitled to and employer has paid benefits for disfigurement. 33 U.S.C. §908(c)(20).

2 employer raises no issues with regard to the administrative law judge’s award of benefits on remand, and as the Board’s previous decisions on the issues raised constitute the law of the case, see, e.g., Irby v. Blackwater Security Consulting, 44 BRBS 17 (2010); Boone v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 37 BRBS 1 (2003), we grant employer’s motion for summary decision. 20 C.F.R. §802.303(b).

Accordingly, employer’s Motion for Summary Affirmance is granted, and the administrative law judge’s Decision and Order on Remand awarding benefits is affirmed.

SO ORDERED.

GREG J. BUZZARD
Administrative Appeals Judge

RYAN GILLIGAN
Administrative Appeals Judge

JONATHAN ROLFE
Administrative Appeals Judge

3