Following a settlement between the parties, Claimant’s attorney filed fee petitions for work performed before the District Director and the Office of Administrative Law Judges.  In each petition, the attorney requested an hourly rate of $412, an amount which was consistent with the rate received by the same attorney in recent attorney fee cases.  Both the District Director and the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) refused to analyze the requested hourly rates anew, citing instead the Benefits Review Board’s recent analysis in the other cases that addressed the same attorney’s hourly rates.  On appeal, the Employer argued that the Director and the ALJ had to make their own analysis of the market data, and that Supreme Court precedent requires “that a case-specific hourly rate must be calculated at each adjudicatory level of proceedings.”  The BRB disagreed, stating that the “Ninth Circuit does not require that a new determination of the relevant community and market hourly rate be madeRead more

Claimant sustained a series of injuries to his neck, back and right knee which resulted in his filing ten claims against seven employers.  Ultimately, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was submitted to an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on March 22, 2010.  Nearly one month later, on April 20, 2010, the ALJ received an amendment to the settlement agreement which resolved the issue as to the apportionment of Claimant’s attorney’s fees.  The ALJ’s decision approving the settlement was filed with the District Director on April 29, 2010.  Payment was issued to Claimant on May 3, 2010, which he received on May 5, 2010.  The issue before the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) was whether or not Claimant was entitled to a Section 14(f) assessment for the late payment of compensation. Claimant’s argument rested on a technicality.  The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act provides that, if the parties are representedRead more

A Section 14(f) waiver may be included in a Section 8(i) settlement agreement.  In a new unpublished decision, the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) addressed the claimant’s request for a Section 14(f) assessment due to the late payment of settlement proceeds.  After the underlying settlement agreement, which contained a Section 14(f) waiver, was approved by the District Director, the employer and carrier sent a wire transfer to the claimant’s Canadian bank account, but the transfer was rejected because the bank account did not exist.  The claimant had provided incorrect wire transfer information that prevented delivery.   Nonetheless, the claimant requested a 20% assessment against the employer and carrier for late payment of the settlement funds.  After an informal conference, the District Director recommended payment of the assessment.  The employer and carrier requested referral to the Office of Administrative Law Judges, but the claimant requested a default order against the employer and carrier.  WhenRead more

On October 26, 2007, the claimant, a container repairman, suffered injuries to his arm, shoulder and back while in the scope of his employment.  The employer paid the claimant temporary total disability benefits through January 26, 2009, and the claimant sought continued benefits.  The administrative law judge found that the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and could not return to his former employment.  In doing so, the judge rejected the employer’s and carrier’s vocational rehabilitation evidence.  In particular, the ALJ found that the vocational counselor based his search for alternate employment primarily on the claimant’s lifting restrictions, but the claimant had additional requirements, including the necessity of frequent breaks and limitations on the amount of sitting and standing he could do. The ALJ found that the claimant’s job at his family’s restaurant was within his restrictions and represented his true wage-earning capacity.  In so holding, the judge decided that theRead more

Claimant, a Defense Base Act (“DBA”) employee working as a security guard in Afghanistan, injured his back in the course of his work-related training.  Although Claimant was able to finish his contract, he filed a claim for benefits after he returned to the United States.  After a formal hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that Claimant’s average weekly wage was $2,897.95, with a corresponding compensation rate of $1,114.44, which is the maximum applicable compensation rate.  See 33 U.S.C. § 906.  Further, pursuant to the parties stipulations, the ALJ found that Claimant began post-injury alternate employment at a rate consistent with rates he earned in the United States prior to his DBA employment.  Finally, the ALJ determined that Claimant was only entitled to a nominal award as of September 1, 2011, because Claimant testified that it was his plan to end his DBA employment by August of 2011. On appeal, the BenefitsRead more