Olivera Buljugić v. Fluor Conops, Limited and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (Board decision, December 22, 2025)

BRB interlocutory order. The Board vacated the denial of benefits and returned the claim to the administrative law judge for a complete written decision. Entitlement remains unresolved. A final Board decision ordinarily becomes final 60 days after issuance absent timely judicial review or reconsideration under 20 C.F.R. § 802.406; a party may seek Board reconsideration within 30 days under § 802.407.

Plain-English summary

Olivera Buljugić sought Defense Base Act benefits for a psychological injury she attributed to work in Afghanistan. The judge denied the claim after announcing findings from the bench and issuing a brief written order that adopted the hearing transcript. The Board did not reach the merits of Buljugić's appeal because that form of order did not provide a written explanation sufficient for appellate review. It vacated the denial and directed the judge to issue a fully developed written decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Written findings requirement under 5 U.S.C. § 557(c)(3)(A), 20 C.F.R. § 702.348, and 29 C.F.R. § 18.92.
• Outcome: Benefits denial vacated and remanded for a complete written decision.
• Key point: A brief order adopting a bench transcript did not provide the written findings needed for Board review.

Full text (BRB public release)

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

BRB No. 24-0067

OLIVERA BULJUGIĆ
)
)
Claimant-Petitioner
)
)
v. )
)
NOT-PUBLISHED
FLUOR CONOPS, LIMITED
)
)
and
) DATE ISSUED: 12/22/2025
)
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE
)
OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
)
Employer/Carrier-
)
Respondents
)
DECISION and ORDER
Appeal of the Decision and Order Denying Benefits of Jonathan C. Calianos, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.

Damir Junicic (Law Office of Damir Junicic), Indianapolis, Indiana, for Claimant.

Edwin B. Barnes and Gabrielle V. McBee (Thomas Quinn, LLP), San Francisco, California, for Employer and its Carrier.

Before: ROLFE and JONES, Administrative Appeals Judges, and ULMER, Acting Administrative Appeals Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant appeals Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jonathan C. Calianos’s Decision and Order Denying Benefits (2021-LDA-03617) rendered on a claim filed pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §§901-950

(Act), as extended by the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. §§1651-1655 (DBA). We must affirm the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law if they are rational, supported by substantial evidence, and in accordance with applicable law. 1 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(3); O’Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Assocs., Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965).

Claimant worked for Employer in Afghanistan from May 17, 2010, through December 15, 2015. Claimant’s Exhibit (CX) 6 at 4. On December 15, 2020, she filed a claim under the DBA seeking disability compensation and medical treatment for her alleged psychological injury, CX 1 at 2, and Employer controverted the claim. Respondents’ Exhibit (RX) 2.

The ALJ held a two-day evidentiary hearing on March 1, 2023, and May 11, 2023, and on October 4, 2023, he held a hearing to render his findings of fact and conclusions of law from the bench. He found Claimant invoked the Section 20(a) presumption, 33 U.S.C.
§920(a), and Employer rebutted it. Upon weighing the evidence, he found Claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a work-related psychological injury. On November 20, 2023, he issued a written Decision and Order Denying Benefits (D&O), adopting and incorporating the bench decision transcript. 2

On appeal, Claimant contends the ALJ erred in finding Employer rebutted the Section 20(a) presumption, 33 U.S.C. §920(a), and challenges his credibility determinations and weighing of the evidence as irrational and not supported by substantial evidence. Employer responds urging affirmance.

For the reasons stated in Zawedde v. SOC, L.L.C., __ BRBS __, BRB No. 24-0178, slip op. (Dec. 19, 2025) (published), we are unable to address the merits of Claimant’s appeal because the ALJ’s D&O is insufficient on its face to enable meaningful review. We therefore remand the case to the ALJ for a fully developed, written Decision and Order that complies with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Act and its implementing regulations, the Office of Administrative Law Judges’ Rules of Practice and Procedure,

1 This case arises within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Second Circuit because the office of the district director who filed the ALJ’s decision is located in New York. 33 U.S.C. §921(c); McDonald v. Aecom Tech. Corp., 45 BRBS 45 (2011); see also Glob. Linguist Sols., L.L.C. v. Abdelmeged, 913 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2019).
2 The ALJ wrote: “The purpose of this Decision and Order is to adopt and incorporate the transcript of the October 4, 2023, Bench Decision and enter a final order memorializing the Bench Decision.” D&O at 2.

2

and our holding in Zawedde.3 5 U.S.C. §557(c)(3)(A); 33 U.S.C. §919(d); 20 C.F.R.
§702.348; 29 C.F.R. §18.92.

Accordingly, we vacate the ALJ’s Decision and Order Denying Benefits and remand the case for a fully developed written decision and order.

SO ORDERED.

JONATHAN ROLFE
Administrative Appeals Judge

MELISSA LIN JONES
Administrative Appeals Judge

GLENN E. ULMER
Acting Administrative Appeals Judge

3 As we held in Zawedde, the Act’s statutory and regulatory framework requires

ALJs to prepare written decisions and orders that provide the law and evidence relied upon with sufficient detail to allow for meaningful appellate review. Zawedde, slip op. at 2. In that vein, “written decisions and orders that simply adopt bench transcripts, like the one at issue in this case, are inherently insufficient in that task, regardless of the detail of the transcript.” Id. at 3.

3