A longshoreman will have another chance to prove he could not work after surveillance video led to an administrative judge questioning his credibility, an appeals court ruled Friday.
In Jordan v. SSA Terminals LLC ] the 9th American Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, unanimously reversed and recalled a judge in the Administrative Court that the worker did not show that he could not work after the judge had decided to apply an "incorrectly high standard."
Anthony Jordan worked for Long Beach, California – based logistics and transportation company SSA Terminals LLC and drove a tractor to move cargo containers. He also owned and operated a small landscape architecture on the site.
On September 1
He filed a claim for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, which was granted, and SSA and its insurers considered Mr. Jordan completely handicapped.
However, the insurer recorded surveillance of Jordan in 2015 and 2016, showed him carrying objects, throwing a baseball, doing push-ups and participating in sporting events where he seemed to sit and stand for long periods without difficulty. A judge in the Administrative Court was assigned to determine whether Jordan was disabled between April 2016 and March 2018.
Mr. Jordan's doctors stated that he could not work as a land surveyor because he could not work an eight-hour day and that "bouncing around in a truck" would "accelerate" the injury he already had in his back. However, he acknowledged that Mr. Jordan could work about five hours a day with restrictions on his landscaping as long as he could take breaks to lie down.
However, doctors who examined Jordan for SSA said he could return to work with restraints; After watching the surveillance videos, they said it seemed like he could work without restrictions.
The ALJ considered that Jordan had failed to show that he was completely disabled and a review board upheld the decision.
Mr. Jordan brought the Court of Appeal for review, and the court reversed and withdrew the case on the grounds that the ALJ had applied an "incorrectly high standard" to Mr Jordan's allegation and found that the ALJ's statement showed that he believed Jordan had to establish that it was "literally impossible". "for him to carry out his previous work.
The Court of Appeal ordered ALJ to determine whether Jordan's complaints about pain were credible and, if so, to decide whether the pain significantly affected his ability to do his previous work. Catalog