Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Employment – LHWCA — disability

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 20, 2012//

Employment – LHWCA — disability

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 20, 2012//

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil

Employment – LHWCA — disability

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.

Roberts contends that the statutory term “awarded compensation” means “awarded compensation in a formal order,” while Sea-Land and the Director, OWCP, maintain that it means “statutorily entitled to compensation because of disability.” Although §906 can be interpreted either way, only Sea-Land and the Director’s interpretation makes §906 a working part of the statutory scheme. Under Roberts’ interpretation, no employee receiving voluntary payments has been “awarded compensation,” so none is subject to an identifiable maximum rate of compensation. That result is incompatible with the LHWCA’s design. Section 906(b)(1) caps compensation at twice the applicable national average weekly wage, as determined by the Secretary of Labor. Section 906(b)(3), in turn, directs the Secretary to determine that wage before each fiscal year begins, at which time it becomes the “applicable national average weekly wage” for the coming fiscal year. And §906(c), in its turn, provides that the Secretary’s determination shall apply to those “newly awarded compensation” during such fiscal year. Through a series of cross-references, the three provisions work together to cap disability benefits. By its terms, and subject to one express exception, §906(b)(1) specifies that the cap applies globally, to all disability claims. Because all three provisions interlock, the cap functions as Congress intended only if §906(c) also applies globally, to all such cases. Roberts’ interpretation would give §906(c) no application in the many cases in which no formal orders issue.

625 F. 3d 1204, affirmed.

10-1399 Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc.

Sotomayor, J.; Ginsburg, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests