A few weeks ago, I submitted a post about the settlement approval Order in Richardson v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 2013-LHC-01317 (OALJ 2013). Apparently I wasn’t the only person who thought this Order was interesting. There has been considerable industry-wide discourse about the propriety of the Order and the Director’s arguments concerning the adequacy of settlements under Section 8(i) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The Director has appealed the Order to the Benefits Review Board.
My opinion is that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) was 100% correct in approving the settlement. But what do others think? I’m not going to steal any thunder from the thoughtful articles posted by some industry experts. Instead, I’m going to refer you to those postings.
Check out “The Fog of Adequacy,” by Stephen C. Embry on the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation Law Community. “The Fog of Adequacy” argues in favor of the ALJ’s decision.
For a good counterpoint, review John Chamberlain’s “When is a settlement adequate?” which is available on John’s Longshore and Defense Base Act Blog.
There is also some discussion about Richardson at the Jones Act and Longshore Claims professional group on LinkedIn. (I recommend joining the group if you haven’t done so already.)
Finally, the Richardson Order will be discussed at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law’s DOL West Coast Symposium III. Registration for the Symposium, which takes place on October 1, 2013, is now open. You can register through Loyola’s CLE website.
(Note: I originally published this post on Navigable Waters: A Maritime, Longshore and Defense Base Act Blog.)
