After Claimant sustained a work-related injury, he settled his Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act claim for a $104,901.54 settlement, which an administrative law judge approved.  Four months later, Claimant was awarded Social Security disability benefits.  When the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) calculated Claimant’s monthly disability payments it did not account for Claimant’s receipt of workers’ compensation benefits.  Accordingly, the SSA advised Claimant in 2008 that his monthly Social Security disability benefits would be reduced.  It took the SSA three years to reduce Claimant’s benefits.  When the reductions were made, Claimant lost a significant amount of income.  His Social Security payments fell from $1,357.00 to $258.50, and then to zero.  Part of the reduction was used to pay the overpayment caused by the delay in reducing benefits. Soon thereafter, Claimant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The SSA was listed as an unsecured creditor for “overpayment of benefits.”  The SSA discharged anRead more

The Fourth Circuit issued a new Black Lungs Benefits Act (“BLBA”) decision that is also particularly important for Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) and Defense Base Act cases.  The majority of the published opinion dealt with the evidence a claimant’s attorney must submit to prove the “prevailing market rate” for BLBA and LHWCA attorneys.  This issue arose in the context of a BLBA case because the BLBA incorporates portions of the LHWCA, including the LHWCA’s attorney fee statute, 33 U.S.C. § 928. The law firm representing the injured worker requested $35,953.75 for work related to the Office of Administrative Law Judge proceeding.  Included in this sum was a $300 hourly rate for an attorney with over thirty years’ experience; a $250 hourly rate for an attorney with sixteen years’ experience; and a $250 and $175 hourly rate for younger attorneys with several years’ experience.  In addition to the AltmanRead more

On July 26, 2013, the Ninth Circuit published a new Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation opinion addressing injuries “occasioned solely by” intoxication.  The facts of the opinion are simple.  After the claimant drank seven to eight bears and half a pint of whiskey between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., he fell over a railing and injured himself.  The question was whether the injury suffered by the intoxicated claimant (who had a .25 blood alcohol level) was “occasioned solely by” intoxication.   Here is the court’s summary: Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Denying the petition for review, the panel held that the Benefits Review Board did not err when it affirmed the administrative law judge’s denial of petitioner’s claim for compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) due to intoxication. The [Ninth Circuit] panel held that the Board did not err in interpreting 33 U.S.C. § 903(c) of the Act, which bars compensation ifRead more

In 2005, Claimant injured his back while working for Employer.  Between 2005 and 2010, Claimant continued seeking medical treatment for his back.  Following a formal hearing, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) ordered Employer to pay temporary total disability and 104 weeks of permanent partial disability.  Beginning at week 105, the Special Fund would begin paying benefits.  Employer “was entitled to be reimbursed by the Special Fund for certain overpayments.” Six months later, Claimant received a letter from the Department of Labor (“DOL”) which said that Employer had paid Claimant at a higher rate than that ordered by the ALJ.  Claimant was overpaid by roughly $39,000.  To reimburse Employer for the overpayment, the DOL deducted a portion of Claimant’s weekly payments.  Aggrieved by the deduction, Claimant eventually filed an enforcement action in the District Court of Hawaii, which framed the issue as follows: The crux of the present dispute is whether reimbursementRead more

Defendant, Oldendorff Carriers GmbH & Co. KG, appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict in a longshoreman’s Section 905(b) claim.  See 33 U.S.C. § 905(b).  The longshoreman was injured on a vessel when he slipped and fell on ice.  Although the fact was disputed, the trial court and the jury came to the conclusion that the vessel’s chief officer told the longshoreman’s shift supervisor that the ship’s crew would take care of the ice.  They would salt and sand between the vessel holds.  When the longshoremen slipped and fell, his shift supervisor notified the officer that “the ship was icy forward,” to which the officer replied that “he only had a limited supply of ice.”  The jury found Defendant negligent and awarded a large sum.  Defendant appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed. At trial and on appeal, Defendant argued that it could not be held liable because ofRead more

The Supreme Court of Alabama issued an interesting decision recently.  An injured worker filed a state lawsuit against his employer.  The injured worker alleged, among other things, fraud and retaliatory discharge pursuant to Alabama Code § 25-5-11.1.  The court ended up splitting the baby.  It concluded that the worker’s fraud complaint was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) and the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act.  His state-based retaliatory discharge complaint, however, was not preempted by the LHWCA. On fraud, the court reasoned: Rodriguez-Flores alleged that U.S. Coatings, through its employee, fraudulently represented to him that “he would be fired if he continued to  seek treatment for his injury,” “that he was not entitled to be paid for time missed from work due to his injury,” and “that he was not entitled to be paid for time missed from work because of the injury and that [he] was onlyRead more