|Filed January 30, 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
DELAWARE RIVER STEVEDORES, INC.,
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
AND SOUTHERN STEVEDORES, INC.,
On Petition for Review of Order and Opinion
Benefits Review Board dated March 12, 2001
entered in Agency Nos. 00-691 and 00-691A
Argued December 18, 2001
Before: SLOVITER and McKEE, Circuit Judges,
DEBEVOISE, District Judge.*
(OPINION FILED: January 30, 2002)
Stephen M. Calder, Esq. (Argued)
Palmer Biezup & Henderson LLP
620 Chestnut Street, Suite 956
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Attorneys for Petitioner
* Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise, United
States Senior District Judge
for the District of New Jersey, sitting by
Eugene Mattioni, Esq. (Argued)
399 Market Street, 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Attorneys for Respondents
OPINION OF THE COURT
DEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge:
This is a petition for review of an order
and opinion of the
Benefits Review Board (the "Board") which
finding of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")
Respondent, Southern Stevedores, Inc. ("SSI")
employer responsible for the benefits awarded
James Loftus for his back injuries. We conclude
findings of the ALJ were not supported by
evidence and will deny the petition for review.
I. The Facts
Loftus had worked as a longshoreman since
Although he suffered several workplace injuries
commenced working for SSI in 1996, none affected
back. At SSI Loftus worked as a 40-foot trailer
and inspected, repaired and overhauled gensets.
were generators that were mounted under the
trailer chassis. Loftus described trailer
repair as follows:
A. Well, if the landing gear gets broken off,
to cut it off and put a new set on, reweld
everything. If an air valve's broke, you
got to take it off,
unhook all the hoses under the trailer to
get a new air
-- to get the valve off and replace a new
valve and put
the hoses back under the trailer. You also
pull the big
black tires, two at a time, to do a brake
job. And the
springs that hold those brakes on aren't
(App. at 99).
A substantial part of Loftus's work consisted
and maintaining gensets. Although management
that it would take seven and one half hours
to repair a
genset, Loftus and his teammate developed
the ability to
accomplish the task in four hours or less.
He described his
work on the genset:
Q. How did you have to either repair or maintain
genset at Southern in the period between
September of 1996?
A. Well, we had to sit on a stool, Your Honor,
little mechanic's stool . . .
Q. What's a mechanic's stool?
A. . . . and it measures exactly one foot
off the floor.
It's a little stool with four wheels on it
and you could
roll around. Now where the genset was mounted
trailer is very low. I'm already down a foot
off the floor
and I have to stick my head in that hole
to get to that
engine and do what I had to do. And I would
over constantly one foot from the floor.
Q. How many men do this job?
A. Basically, it was me and Kevin Doyle.
Q. When you're doing this, my point, do you
men working on the same genset?
A. Well, I would be on this side. I would
take the side
where the starter and the alternator and
was and this would be the trailer. And Kevin
would be on that side where he would drain
the oil and
change the oil filters and work on the control
which was up a little higher than the side
(App. at 99-100).
After performing this work for a number of
began to have trouble with his lower back.
1996 he went to his family doctor who prescribed
relieving drugs and, because it was a work
advised him to seek medical care through
his employer. SSI
referred Loftus to Michael J. Mandarino,
M.D., P.C. who
examined Loftus on or about October 11. Dr.
reported that Loftus complained of discomfort
up and down
the spine and across the low back but denied
arm or leg
radiation of discomfort. He concluded that
were consistent with a sprain and strain
and advised Loftus
to exercise, swim as much as possible during
approaching Florida vacation, to continue
taking his oral
medication and to return for reevaluation
in two weeks.
On December 9 and 16 Loftus returned to Dr.
for tests and reevaluation. Loftus had had
a CT scan, a
bone scan and MRI scan, all of which were
December 16 Dr. Mandarino noted that "On
today the patient has full motion of the
Straight leg raise is negative. No neurological
noted at this time nor has there ever been
deficit. It has been explained to Mr. Loftus
that all of the
diagnostic studies are normal. He feels that
he is capable of
returning to work." (App. at 32).
Dr. Mandarino stated that Loftus could return
full duty without restriction the following
17, 1996. Loftus did in fact return to work,
and SSI made
substantial adjustments in its work practices
to relieve the
pressures on Loftus's back. As Loftus described
A. Well, the trailer came up higher off the
everything. And then the trailer came up,
came up, everything was up high. We had -
bought a hydraulic jack, we put it in the
raised the back. And they had two big twelve-by-twelve
chocks that we would put under the landing
everything came from this high on the floor
you know, where you could sit and work in
didn't have to stick your head in, you know,
weren't bent over like this anymore.
Q. Did you still have to use that one footstool?
A. No, they had chairs just as high as this
could raise the chair and lower the chair.
It had a back
(App. at 109-110).
Loftus returned to Dr. Mandarino on April
reporting that since the December visit "the
job itself and
the overall conditions of his job have been
tremendously" but that "over the last few
weeks there has
been a gradual recurrence of discomfort in
the spine." (App.
at 32). On examination of the lumbar spine
found discomfort on motion. Straight leg
negative. No neurological deficits were noted
in the lower
extremities. Loftus was started on Medrol-dospak
advised to return in three days for reevaluation.
Loftus returned to Dr. Mandarino for reevaluation
April 28 and May 2, 1997. Dr. Mandarino found
of the tests nor his examination would explain
disabling pain. After explaining this to
Mandarino cleared him orthopedically to return
to full duty
without restriction. Dr. Mandarino advised
him to have a
physical with his family doctor to see if
there were any
nonwork related etiology for his discomfort
him from his care.
On May 14, 1997 Loftus went to Dr. Gad Guttman,
senior orthopedic surgeon at the Department
Surgery at Albert Einstein Medical Center,
for a second
opinion. Dr. Guttman reviewed Dr. Mandarino's
reflecting the absence of radiculopathy,
Loftus's return to
work on December 17, 1966, the recurrence
of back pain in
April, 1997 and Dr. Mandarino's conclusion
that from an
orthopedic standpoint Loftus was cleared
to return to full
duty. Dr. Guttman also reviewed the December
report of the radiologist reflecting Loftus's
return to work on
December 17, 1996, the recurrence of back
pain in April
1997 and Dr. Mandarino's conclusion that
orthopedic standpoint Loftus was cleared
to return to full
duty. Dr. Guttman also reviewed the December
report of the radiologist reflecting that
an MRI showed mild
degenerative changes of discs 3-4 and 4-5
and mild bulging
without disc herniation or foraminal stenosis.
findings, Dr. Guttman stated, were confirmed
December CAT scan and bone scan, all of which
consistent with the findings of degenerative
changes of the
lumbar spine which one would expect in a
patient in this
type of work, with this habitus and weight
and so on."
(Supp. App. at 48).
Dr. Guttman took Loftus's history and performed
physical examination. During his testimony
was asked whether he had an opinion as to
Loftus's complaints emanating from October
of 1996 had
closed when he saw him in May of 1997. Dr.
I felt that at the time that I examined him
complaints were related more to his overweight,
overexertion and to the underlying degenerative
changes. He kept working all the time and
it was not
unusual to have pain coming and going after
heavy work and he was in pretty bad overall
anyway. When I saw him he was overweight
had degenerative changes.
So as far as the specific question, in I believe
symptoms started acutely. Then they resolved
December of `96 I believe according to Dr.
report. He returned back to work. Then he
working and after four months or so he started
pain again. I called it overexertion and
and underlying degenerative changes.
(Supp. App. at 54).
Because his back was hurting Loftus had taken
from his work from April 25 to May 4, 1997.
He saw Dr.
Guttman on May 14 and took time off from
work from May
8 to May 18. On or about May 18 he returned
to work full
time. His back still caused him discomfort
and to relieve
the pain he commenced seeing a chiropractor,
Dr. Izzo on
July 16, continuing with him until September
when his insurance coverage expired. Dr.
relief through ultrasound, a TENS device,
heat packs and
At the end of August 1997 petitioner, Delaware
Stevedores, Inc. ("DRS") acquired SSI's interest
facility at which Loftus worked. DRS acquired
equipment including the special equipment
that had been
designed for Loftus to relieve his back problems.
at the facility continued as before and the
nature of Loftus's
work did not change after August of 1997.
In the four month period January through April
Loftus worked an extraordinary number of
ranging on many days from ten to eleven hours
others from seventeen to eighteen hours.
On one day he
worked twenty-one hours. The demands placed
stevedoring company to move incoming cargoes
of fruit was
the reason for DRS's heavy time demands imposed
By April 1998 Loftus's back was again causing
serious pain. He was referred to Roy T. Lefkoe,
The referral letter from Branch Manager,
DRS's claims adjuster, Neil J. Davis stated:
particularly interested in having you take
history from the claimant, to determine whether
or not his
recent complaints are the result of a new
injury with his
present employer, Delaware River Stevedores,
or if they are
attributable to the old accident of September
Dr. Lefkoe saw Loftus for an orthopedic consultation
May 20, 1998. He reviewed Loftus's medical
took a history from Loftus, who reported
that "[i]n 4/98 his
pain worsened without additional injury"
(App. at 38).
Loftus reported low-back pain radiating into
Dr. Lefkoe conducted a physical examination.
diagnosis was acute and chronic lumbosocral
and lumbar degenerative disc disease at L3-4
and L4-5 with
bulging discs. He found Loftus to be in acute
unable to continue working. He prescribed
physical therapy to include aquatherapy,
exercise. As to the question Davis addressed
to him, he
stated, "Based on all information available
to me, the cause
of his present back condition still is the
original work injury
of 9/30/96." (App at 40).
Loftus did not return to work; rather he continued
Dr. Lefkoe and proceeded with physical therapy.
received a July 9, 1988 report of neurologist
Mandel, M.D., who stated, ". . . this gentleman
** The letter (App. at 36) referred to September
30, 1990, but
undoubtedly the author intended to refer
to September 30, 1996, and
Dr. Lefkoe so understood it.
have complaints consistent with a diagnosis
radiculopathy. There is evidence of chronic
changes and the
L5 and S1 distribution without evidence of
acute changes noted. There are only mild
changes noted in
his right lumbar paraspinal muscles at the
L4-5 and L5-S1
area." (App. at 47). Dr. Lefkoe prescribed
referred Loftus to Dr. Sandra Kahn for injections.
this provided relief, and Loftus was referred
to Dr. Rosen in
November, 1998. Dr. Rosen administered a
series of six
epidural injections which had a beneficial
testified that Dr. Rosen's treatment "brought
me back" to
the extent that "I never knew anything was
wrong with me.
It was so good." (App. at 122).
Loftus was able to return to work with DRS
1999 with restrictions. He was not called
upon to go
underneath the trailers. He usually wore
a TENS unit and
occasionally took pills to relieve pain.
He worked only eight
hour shifts and performed no overtime.
Dr. Guttman, who had reported on Loftus's
after his work cessation in April 1997 saw
him again in
June of 1998, about five weeks after he had
because of increased pain and after Loftus
had come under
the care of Dr. Lefkoe. He saw him again
in August 1998.
Dr. Guttman testified that Loftus was in
greater pain than
when he had seen him the previous year. Dr.
referred to the records showing Loftus's
during the months preceding May of 1998.
Basically they showed that he did quite a
overwork and in those months, I believe January
through April, he did extremely heavy long-time
what I call overwork, and that in itself
I believe can
explain why he had this onset of pain after
already working there, but during those four
he really worked extremely heavy and I believe
that could explain his pain when I saw him
which was a little bit worse in intensity
than the one
that he had before.
(Supp. App. at 58).
Dr. Guttman was directed to assume that Loftus
unusually long hours in January, February,
April 1998 and was asked if he had an opinion
as to the
cause of Loftus's back pain in April and
May of 1998
through the time he saw him in August 1998.
Well, the information you give me I was also
review before. It just amplifies my impression
there was an exertion of work. He worked
than the normal person would work in a day's
almost twice as much sometimes, and that
certainly very stressful for his back. So
that he reported to me and came to me was
similar were much worse and intense when
I saw him
in June of `98 than compared to the ones
that I saw
him in April of `97 at which time he had
symptoms and, in fact, I felt he could go
back to work
without problems. I didn't feel so when I
saw him in`98
and explanation for that, he over exerted
stressed his back at work over time and that
cause of his problems and it was ongoing.
(Supp. App. at 65-66).
As recited above, after Dr. Guttman's August
Loftus continued medical treatment and physical
and was able to return to work on a restricted
II. Administrative Proceedings
In August 1999 the ALJ heard Loftus's claim
compensation benefits under the Longshore
Workers' Compensation Act, as amended 33
et seq. (the "Act"). The parties to the proceeding
claimant, Loftus; the earlier employer, SSI;
subsequent employer, DRS. Of the four issues
ALJ, only one is the subject of the present
*** The portion of the testimony of Dr. Bong
Lee included in the record
contributes little to resolution of the principal
issue in this case. In Dr.
Lee's opinion the cause of Loftus's disability
was not due to a work
incident or symptoms in September 1996 but
is due to his pre-existing
back condition. This pre-existing back condition
would also be the cause
of each subsequent flare up. (Supp. App.
"[w]hich of the named Employers is responsible
compensation benefits awarded."****
SSI asserted that Loftus suffered no work
disability as a result of work Loftus performed
for it but
that Loftus suffered a naturally occurring
spinal condition pre-existent to the September
manifestation of low back pain therefrom.
asserted that if Loftus was rendered disabled
related causes, such disability arose as
the result of a
separate and discrete event of work overexertion
the employ of DRS between January and April
placing liability for compensation benefits
upon DRS as of
the May 20, 1998 manifestation of low back
DRS adopted SSI's first contention and alternatively
urged that if Loftus were disabled from work
activity, it was
his work activity at SSI, first manifested
by pain in
September 1996 which exclusively placed liability
compensation benefits solely upon SSI.
The ALJ rejected SSI's and DRS's first argument
concluded that Loftus was entitled to compensation
total temporary disability for the periods
between SSI and DRS he found that SSI was
responsible for all benefits awarded, stating:
I find that the record evidence establishes
Southern is the employer responsible for
awarded herein. First, there is no evidence
Claimant suffered from a severe back injury
impairment or from back pain prohibiting
prior to the September 30, 1996 manifestation
back pain (See Tr. 25, 62). Second, Claimant's
problems and same complaints of back pain
throughout the time period subsequent to
**** In addition the ALJ had to determine
i) whether Loftus was entitled
to compensation for total temporary disability
for the intermittent
periods he was out of work between September
30, 1996 and January
21, 1999, ii) whether Loftus was entitled
to compensation for temporary
partial disability (loss of wage earning
capacity) after January 21, 1999
and iii) Loftus's average weekly wage underlying
30, 1996 up to the present (Tr. 46; 105-6;
And Claimant promptly reported this back
pain to his
foreman at that time (Tr. 31). Finally, the
probative medical and lay evidence otherwise
establishes that Southern is the employer
(App. at 17).
In half a page the ALJ marshaled the evidence
believed supported his conclusion. He rejected
contention that but for the four month period
work Loftus would not have been disabled
after late April
1998 on the ground that "but for the initial
1996) manifestation of back symptoms, Claimant
have suspended his work activities after
1998 symptom flare-up". (App. at 17).
The ALJ attached the greatest weight to Dr.
20, 1998 opinion that Loftus's back condition
1998 was caused by the original work injury
30, 1996. The ALJ further stated that Dr.
deposition testimony "repeats this conclusion
The ALJ acknowledged that "the episode of
work exertion while Claimant was employed
at DRS in
January through April 1998 may well have
low back pain," but he went on to state that"the
precipitant event of symptom manifestation
30, 1996 was the discrete event which ultimately
eventuated and progressed to the final debilitating
late April - May, 1998 requiring the suspension
activity (and later necessitating the January,
1999 return to
work at only a light daily job)." (Id.)
SSI appealed to the Board the Decision and
Order of the
ALJ finding it to be the responsible employer
for the period
of temporary total disability from April
21, 1998 to January
20, 1999. The Board concluded that the ALJ
erroneous legal principles and held that
as a matter of law
DRS is liable for Loftus's temporary total
for the period from May 1998 to January 20,
The Board held that "[a]lthough the employer
at the time
of an initial traumatic injury remains liable
for the full
disability resulting from the natural progression
injury, if claimant's subsequent employment
accelerates claimant's condition resulting
in disability, the
subsequent employer is fully liable." (App.
at 4). Phrased
somewhat differently the Board also held
the law to be that
"where claimant's work results in a temporary
of symptoms, the employer at the time of
the work events
leading to this exacerbation is responsible
for the resulting
temporary total disability." (App. at 4).
The Board found that the undisputed evidence
established that Loftus's employment with
included the four months of lengthy overtime,
Loftus's symptoms, resulting in increased
evidence included Dr. Guttman's, Dr. Lefkoe's
and Dr. Lee's
opinions to that effect.
The Board held that the ALJ misapplied the
law in that
the test was not, as the ALJ ruled, that
a work-related injury on September 30, 1996,
his continued work activity aggravated his
impairment." (App. at 5).
The Board further held that the ALJ misapplied
in holding that it was determinative that
precipitant event of symptom manifestation
30, 1996 was the discrete event which ultimately
eventuated and progressed to the final debilitating
late April-May 1998 requiring the suspension
activity." (App. at 5).
Based on what it found to be errors of law
reversed the ALJ's finding that SSI is liable
period of temporary total disability benefits
from May 1998
to January 20, 1999, holding that DRS is
employer for this period of disability as
a matter of law.
We have jurisdiction of the petition to review
final order by virtue of Section 21(c) of
the Act, 33 U.S.C.
Under the Act the Board is obligated to treat
findings of fact as "conclusive if supported
evidence in the record considered as whole."
S 921(b)(3). Substantial evidence is "more
than a mere
scintilla. It means such relevant evidence
as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support
Universal Camera Corporation v. NLRB, 340
U.S. 474, 477,
71 S.Ct. 456, 459, 95 L.Ed. 456(1951).
In reviewing the Board's decision this court
ascertain i) whether the Board adhered to
scope of review, ii) whether the Board committed
of law, and iii) whether the ALJ's findings
are supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
General Adjustment Bureau, 738 F.2d 474,
477 (D.C. Cir.
Both SSI and DRS agree that the law governing
responsible employer in the case of multiple
injuries is set forth in Buchanan v. International
Transportation Services, 33 BRBS 32 (1999),
aff 'd mem.,
No. 99-70631 (9th Cir., Feb. 26, 2001). There
In determining the responsible employer in
the case of
multiple traumatic injuries, if the disability
from the natural progression of an initial
would have occurred notwithstanding a subsequent
injury, then the initial injury is the compensable
and accordingly the employer at the time
of that injury
is responsible for the payment of benefits.
If, on the
other hand, the subsequent injury aggravates,
accelerates, or combines with claimant's
thus resulting in claimant's disability,
subsequent injury is the compensable injury
subsequent employer is fully liable.
Id. at 35.
This is the law that the Board applied. It
that "[i]f the conditions of a claimant's
him to become symptomatic, even if no permanent
results, the claimant has sustained an injury
meaning of the Act." The Board further noted,
that "where claimant's work results in a
exacerbation of symptoms, the employer at
the time of the
work events leading to this exacerbation is
the resulting temporary total disability."
(App. at 3).
Kelaita v. Director, OWCP, 799 F.2d 1308 (9th
is illustrative of the application of these
bears a close parallel to the present case.
The claimant in
that case suffered from a continuing shoulder
tear. He suffered a flare-up of pain which
work while employed at Triple A. He voluntarily
A in December 1974 and commenced work as
at General Engineering. There he suffered
interrupting flare-up of his arm. He filed
two claims for
compensation. In the first he alleged cumulative
injury to his right shoulder during employment
at Triple A.
In the second he alleged an identical injury
employment at General.
The ALJ found that the claimant's disability
from continued use of his arm and that each
pain represented cumulative trauma and aggravated
underlying injury, resulting in each case
in a compensable
The Court of Appeals sustained the ALJ's conclusion
because General was the employer during the
aggravation, it should be held liable for
The last responsible employer rule is applied
injury cases as follows:
If, on the other hand, the [subsequent] injury
aggravated, accelerated or combined with
prior injury, thus resulting in claimant's
then the [subsequent] injury is the compensable
and [the subsequent employer] is . . . responsible
. . .
700 F.2d at 1311 (quoting Crawford v. Equitable
Inc., 11 BRBS 646, 649-50 (1979), aff 'd
Employers National Ins. Co. v. Equitable
F.2d 383 (5th Cir. 1981)).
The facts in the present case are almost identical
dealt with in Kelaita except that the underlying
resulting in periodic flare-ups involved
back condition rather than a continuing shoulder
condition. All the medical evidence confirmed
suffered from chronic lumbar degenerative
This resulted in two distinct flare-ups or
injuries. The first
culminated in late September 1996 when the
became so intractable that Loftus had to
stop work and
undergo diagnosis and treatment. He recovered
to return to work in December 1996. The underlying
lumbar degenerative disc disease persisted
as was to be
expected, requiring Loftus to resort to various
from time to time to alleviate pain. However,
he was able to
continue work, with occasional absences,
through all of
1997 and on until May 1998 when he suffered
flare-up, more serious than the first. The
extensive treatment and Loftus was unable
to return to
work until January 1999.
It is DRS's contention that this was merely
progression of the original injury rather
than the result of
employment that aggravated or accelerated
condition resulting in disability. The ALJ,
as the Board
pointed out, did not address head-on the
whether the May 1998 episode aggravated or
claimant's condition. Rather his general
that he was relying on erroneous legal principles
finding that Loftus's May 20, 1998 back condition
caused by the original work injury of September
was unsupported by any evidence.
The ALJ gave a number of reasons for finding
that SSI is
the employer responsible for benefits. He
stated that there
is no evidence that Loftus suffered from
a severe back
injury or impairment or from back pain prohibiting
work prior to the September 30, 1996 manifestation
back pain and that "the initial precipitant
event of symptom
manifestation on September 30, 1996 was the
event which ultimately eventuated and progressed
final debilitating event of late April-May
1998." (App. at 17).
As the Board pointed out in its decision,
fact that the earlier injury was the `precipitant
event' is not
determinative." (App. at 5). The determinative
whether Loftus's subsequent work aggravated
exacerbated Loftus's condition first manifested
Even the ALJ's own opinion concedes there
aggravation of the September 1996 injury.
In the section in
which he awarded Loftus temporary total disability
found a work-related injury on September
that Loftus's continued work activity aggravated
back impairment" and that this conclusion
preponderantly medically demonstrated in
(App. at 16) (emphasis added). Further, the
ALJ refers to
the April-May "flare-up" and concedes that"the
extra heavy work exertion while claimant
was employed at
DRS in January through April 1998 may well
furthered his low back pain, the initial
etc. . . ." (App. at 17).
The only medical evidence that might support
inference that the May 1998 flare-up was
a continuation of
the September 1996 flare-up is an opinion
stated in Dr.
Lefkoe's May 20, 1998 report after he had
Loftus in connection with the May 1998 flare-up.
"[b]ased on all information available to
me, the cause of his
present back condition still is the original
work injury of
9/30/96." (App. at 40).
The ALJ said that Dr. Lefkoe's opinion is
evidence to which I attach the greatest weight."
(App. at 6).
In Dr. Lefkoe's deposition testimony, however,
conceded that Loftus had not informed him
extraordinary number of hours he had worked
January through April 1998 period.
Q. Did he advise you that he was working a
of overtime sometimes 15, 16, 18 hour days?
A. No, I was not aware of that . . . He just
that in April of 1998, his pain worsened
specific identifiable injury. . . That could
aggravated his condition.
Q. That would be aggravating his condition?
A. That's correct.
(Supp. App. at 16-17).
After being referred to Loftus's testimony
long hours during the fruit season, Dr. Lefkoe
Q. If that's true, can we agree that that
aggravated his preexisting back problem?
A. I think that that certainly could have
his preexisting back problem. (emphasis added)
(Supp. App. at 36).
Thus, given full information, Dr. Lefkoe discarded
May 20, 1998 opinion upon which the ALJ relied
revised it to express the view that Loftus's
January - April
1998 working conditions "certainly could
his preexisting back problem." His opinion
in this respect
was consistent with the opinions of the other
experts, Dr. Guttman and Dr. Lee.
The ALJ applied incorrect principles of law,
finding that the May 1998 flare-up was simply
continuation of the September 1996 flare-up
supported by substantial evidence.
We will deny the petition to review the Board's
the ALJ's finding that SSI is liable for
the May 1998 to
January 20, 1999 period of benefits and to
Board's holding that DRS is the responsible
this period of disability as a matter of
A True Copy:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit