Plaquemines Equipment & Machine Co. v. Neuman
Opinion
Six years after a Deputy Commissioner had entered a continuing compensation award in favor of claimant, a District Court, considering a third-party-tort suit brought by the claimant allegedly arising out of the same episode, found that the plaintiff (claimant) was entirely unworthy of belief and that the injury-producing event had not, in fact, occurred. Accordingly, the employer and his compensation insurer petitioned the Deputy Commissioner under 33 U.S.C.A. § 922 to reconsider and set aside the never appealed 1964 award. The Deputy Commissioner declined to modify the 1964 order as requested,1 the District Court upheld that determination, and this appeal ensued. We affirm.
Despite the District Court’s holding in the third party suit, the Deputy Commissioner chose to believe the claimant. The District Court reviewing that decision — and it was a different District Judge than the one in the third party suit — agreed with the first District Judge that the claimant’s credibility had been completely discredited and that the Deputy Commissioner’s credibility selection was tenuous, credulous and unwise,2 but he refused to set aside the award since, given the credibility choice which the Deputy Commissioner had made, and which was exclusively within his prov[1243] inee to make,3 there was substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Deputy Commissioner’s finding that the claimant had been injured on the job on January 14, 1963 and to sustain the consequent award.4
The District Court’s holding correctly applied the law.
Affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
460 F.2d 1241 (Plaquemines Equipment & Machine Co. v. Neuman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.