On October 14, 2014, the Court issued its second Order List for the 2014 term. One of the cases that the Supreme Court denied was Lincoln v. Director, OWCP. Lincoln was an interesting case that involved the attorneys fee provision of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) and the meaning of the term “compensation.” The facts of Lincoln are fairly straight forward. The employee filed a hearing loss claim on May 24, 2011. Initially, the employer filed a notice of controversion stating that the hearing loss was noise-induced, but it needed additional information to determine the correct disability payment. On June 14, 2011, the district director served notice that the claim was filed. Then, on July 7, 2011, the employer voluntarily paid employee $1,256.84, amounting to compensation for “0.5% [binaural] hearing loss” and the equivalent of one week of permanent partial disability benefits under the maximum compensation rate.Read more
The Supreme Court Denied Review in Dize and Other Maritime Cases
The Supreme Court is back in session. On October 6, 2014, the Court issued its Orders list, wherein a large number of cases were denied certiorari. Accordingly, the Court will not review: Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots. The question presented in Dize was whether, when applying the Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis thirty-percent rule–that, ordinarily, a qualifying “seaman” under the Jones Act must spend thirty percent or more of his time in service of a vessel in navigation–a court may consider the time a maritime worker spends in the service of a vessel in navigation that is moored, dockside, or ashore, as the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have held, or whether a court must categorically exclude such time, as the Eleventh Circuit and the Maryland Court of Appeals have held. Gonzalvez v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. The petitioners asked the Court to consider whether seamen are statutorily exempt from the 3-month limitationsRead more
Supreme Court Refuses to Review Minton. Punitive Damages Are Not Available Under the LHWCA.
Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in Minton v. Exxon Mobil Corp. That means that the Court will not review the Virginia Supreme Court’s determination that punitive damages are unavailable in Section 905(b) actions. Specifically, the Virginia Supreme Court stated that because “punitive damages are not a remedy made available within the terms of the LHWCA, and the language plainly restricts the damages to those remedies explicitly made available, they are extinguished as a category of recovery in LHWCA claims.” Click here for the Supreme Court’s Order List where it denied certiorari. Click here for Virginia’s Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Minton, — S.E.2s —-, 2013 WL 119661 (Va. 2013). (Note: I originally published this post on Navigable Waters: A Maritime, Longshore and Defense Base Act Blog.)
SCOTUS Decided Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc.
This morning the Supreme Court decided Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc. In this employer-friendly decision, the Court held that “an employee is ‘newly awarded compensation’ when he first becomes disabled and thereby becomes statutorily entitled to benefits, no matter whether, or when, a compensation order issues on his behalf.” The Court’s syllabus is reprinted below. The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) creates a comprehensive scheme to pay compensation for an eligible employee’s disability or death resulting from injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States. Benefits for most types of disabilities are capped at twice the national average weekly wage for the fiscal year in which an injured employee is “newly awarded compensation.” 33 U. S. C. §906(c). The LHWCA requires employers to pay benefits voluntarily, without formal administrative proceedings. Typically, employers pay benefits without contesting liability, so no compensation orders are issued. However, if an employer controvertsRead more
