Magistrate Judge Johnson rejects strict application of DSM-IV in Defense Base Act psychiatric claim

by Matthew H. Ammerman on March 14th, 2011

The Defense Base Act (DBA) is an extension of the Longshore & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act to private contractors involved in defense or public work contracts outside the U.S. In the Fifth Circuit, appeals of DBA claims from the Benefits Review Board go to the U.S. District Court in which the District Director's office is located. 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) n2 and 42 U.S.C. § 1653(b), n3 as confirmed by AFIA/CIGNA Worldwide v. Felkner, 930 F.2d 1111 (5th Cir. 1991).

This case involved a mechanic who worked for ITT in Kuwait who claims benefits for PTSD and depression. ITT Indus. v. S.K., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21721 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011). The worker alleged his co-workers called him names such as "terrorist," "Taliban," "al Qaeda," "Hezbollah" on an almost daily basis because of his Arabic heritage. He returned to the United States due to psychiatric complaints.

At trial, the administrative law judge awarded benefits for PTSD and depression. The Board affirmed and held that the DSM-IV should not be strictly applied to determine whether benefits should be awarded for a psychiatric condition. Judge Johnson agreed with the premise that a medical text should not control legal determinations based on Fifth Circuit case law:

"[strict application of the DSM-IV would] ... surrender to mental health experts the ultimate responsibility of adjudicating" that determination "and just as improperly would take that decision away from the court." United States v. Long, 562 F.3d 325, 332-33 (5th Cir. 2009).

Judge Johnson held that the criteria of the DSM-IV need not be established or even discussed by the ALJ in every instance. However, she rejected the worker's claim for medical benefits based on PTSD. Dr. Salameh relied on the DSM-IV in reaching his diagnosis even though Claimant did not meet all the criteria for PTSD. Consequently, the doctor's diagnosis was internally inconsistent and unreliable for that reason. Judge Johnson affirmed, however, the award of benefits for depression because it was supported by substantial medical evidence. ITT Indus. v. S.K., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21721, 37-38 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011).

Posted in LHWCA: Evidence; Psychiatric Claims    Tagged with no tags



follow on

11th circuit 5th Circuit 905(b) 9th circuit ALJ Aggravation Rule Amclyde Average weekly wage Bienvenu Boroski CMS CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 Churchill Contribution Cowart Credit Intoxication defense L-MSA LHWCA discovery LHWCA: Medical LHWCA Longshore Report of Injury Longshore situs Longshore Maintenance and cure New Orleans Depot OCSLA OPA Oil Pollution Act Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Permanent total disability Roberts Section 10(a) Section 10(c) Section 20 Presumption Section 33(g) Section 7 Medical Section 7 Stroke Supreme Court Testbank Townsend Tracy Valladolid actually incurred additional insured adjoining area batterton change of physician compensation container repair disability doiron dollar-for-dollar dr. seidemann eggshell skull exclusion extraterritorial general maritime law hearing loss herron factors indemnity intervening cause jones act joseph tracy last responsible employer rule liability MSA longshore act longshore status manderson maritime contract maritime punitive damages master service agreement maximum compensation rate mcbride v. estis mcbride medical expenses naquin non-pecuniary damages occupational disease outer continental shelf pai or incurred paid or incurred pecuniary damages percentage of responsibility presumption punitive damages ramos rate rebuttal recreational vessel seaman status seaman situs special weight status substantial nexus transitory maritime worker unseaworthiness vessel negligence vessel status voluntary retirement winchester test winchester zepeda mixed-use facility zepeda