Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Company

Decision Date27 June 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-116,79-116
PartiesHalley I. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Petitioner, a resident of the District of Columbia, received an award of disability benefits from the Virginia Industrial Commission under the Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act for injuries received in Virginia while employed by respondent employer (hereafter respondent), which was principally located in the District of Columbia, where petitioner was hired. Subsequently, petitioner received a supplemental award under the District of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act over respondent's contention that since, as a matter of Virginia law, the Virginia award excluded any other recovery "at common law or otherwise" on account of the injury in Virginia, the District of Columbia's obligation to give that award full faith and credit precluded a second, supplemental award in the District. The administrative order upholding the supplemental award was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which held that the award was precluded by the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Held : The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. Pp. 266-286; 286-290.

4 Cir., 598 F.2d 617, reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice STEVENS, joined by Mr. Justice BRENNAN, Mr. Justice STEWART, and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, concluded that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not preclude successive workmen's compensation awards, since a State has no legitimate interest within the context of the federal system in preventing another State from granting a supplemental compensation award when that second State would have had the power, as here, to apply its workmen's compensation law in the first instance. Pp. 266-286.

(a) The rule of Industrial Comm'n of Wisconsin v. McCartin, 330 U.S. 622, 67 S.Ct. 886, 91 L.Ed. 1140, authorizing a State, by drafting or construing its workmen's compensation statute in "unmistakable language," directly to preclude a compensation award in another State, represents an unwarranted delegation to the States of this Court's responsibility for the final arbitration of full faith and credit questions. To vest the power of determining such extraterritorial effect in the State itself risks the very kind of parochial entrenchment on the interests of other States that it was the purpose of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and other provisions of Art. IV to prevent. A re-examination of McCartin § "unmistakable language" test reinforces the conclusion that it does not provide an acceptable basis on which to distinguishMagnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U.S. 430, 64 S.Ct. 208, 88 L.Ed. 149, wherein it was held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded an employee, who received a workmen's compensation award for injuries received in one State, from seeking supplementary compensation in another State where he had been hired. Pp. 266-272.

(b) In view, however, of the history of subsequent state cases showing that they overwhelmingly followed McCartin and applied the "unmistakable language" test in permitting successive workmen's compensation awards, the principal values underlying the doctrine of stare decisis would not be served by attempting either to revive Magnolia or to preserve the coexistence of Magnolia and McCartin. The latter attempt could only breed uncertainty and unpredictability, since the application of the "unmistakable language" rule necessarily depends on a determination by one state tribunal of the effect to be given to statutory language enacted by the legislature of a different State. And the former would represent a change that would not promote stability in the law. Moreover, since Magnolia has been so rarely followed, there is little danger that there has been any significant reliance on its rule. Hence, a fresh examination of the full faith and credit issue is appropriate. Pp. 272-277.

(c) Since petitioner could have sought a compensation award in the first instance in either Virginia or the District of Columbia even if one statute or the other purported to confer an exclusive remedy, respondent and its insurer, for all practical purposes, would have had to measure their potential liability exposure by the more generous of the two workmen's compensation schemes. It follows that a State's interest in limiting the potential liability of businesses within the State is not of controlling importance. Moreover, the state interest in providing adequate compensation to the injured worker would be fully served by the allowance of successive awards. Pp. 277-280.

(d) With respect to whether Virginia's interest in the integrity of its tribunal's determinations precludes a supplemental award in the District of Columbia, the critical differences between a court of general jurisdiction and an administrative agency with limited statutory authority foreclose the conclusion that constitutional rules applicable to court judgments are necessarily applicable to workmen's compensation awards. The Virginia Industrial Commission, although it could establish petitioner's rights under Virginia law, neither could nor purported to determine his rights under District of Columbia law. Full faith and credit must be given to the determination that the Commission had the authority to make but need not be given to determinations that it had no power to make. Since it was not requested, and had no authority, to pass on petitioner's rights under District of Columbia law, there can be no constitutional objection to a fresh adjudication of those rights. While Virginia had an interest in having respondent pay petitioner the amounts specified in its award, allowing a supplementary recovery in the District of Columbia does not conflict with that interest. And whether or not petitioner sought an award from the less generous jurisdiction in the first instance, the vindication of that State's interest in placing a ceiling on employers' liability would inevitably impinge upon the substantial interests of the second jurisdiction in the welfare and subsistence of disabled workers—interests that a court of general jurisdiction might consider, but which must be ignored by the Virginia Industrial Commission. Pp. 280-285.

Mr. Justice WHITE, joined by Mr. Chief Justice BURGER and Mr. Justice POWELL, concluded that the Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act lacks the "unmistakable language" which McCartin, supra, requires if a workmen's compensation award is to preclude a subsequent award in another State. P. 289-290.

James F. Green, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Alan I. Horowitz, Washington, D. C., for federal respondent supporting petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.

Kevin Jeffrey Baldwin, Washington, D. C., for respondent Washington Gas Light Company.

Mr. Justice STEVENS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Mr. Justice BRENNAN, Mr. Justice STEWART, and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN joined.

Petitioner received an award of disability benefits under the Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act. The question presented is whether the obligation of the District of Columbia to give full faith and credit to that award 1 bars a supplemental award under the District's Workmen's Compensation Act.2

Petitioner is a resident of the District of Columbia and was hired in the District of Columbia. During the year that he was employed by respondent, he worked primarily in the District but also worked in Virginia and Maryland. He sustained a back injury while at work in Arlington, Va., on January 22, 1971. Two weeks later he entered into an "Industrial Commission of Virginia Memorandum of Agreement as to Payment of Compensation" providing for benefits of $62 per week. Several weeks later the Virginia Industrial Commission approved the agreement and issued its award directing that payments continue "during incapacity," subject to various contingencies and changes set forth in the Virginia statute. App. 49.

In 1974, petitioner notified the Department of Labor of his intention to seek compensation under the District of Columbia Act. Respondent opposed the claim primarily 3 on the ground that since, as a matter of Virginia law, the Virginia award excluded any other recovery "at common law or otherwise" on account of the injury in Virginia,4 the District of Columbia's obligation to give that award full faith and credit precluded a second, supplemental award in the District.

The Administrative Law Judge agreed with respondent that the Virginia award must be given res judicata effect in the District to the extent that it was res judicata in Virginia.5 He held, however, that the Virginia award, by its terms, did not preclude a further award of compensation in Virginia.6 Moreover, he construed the statutory prohibition against additional recovery "at common law or otherwise" as merely covering "common law and other remedies under Virginia law." 7 After the taking of medical evidence, petitioner was awarded permanent total disability benefits payable from the date of his injury with a credit for the amounts previously paid under the Virginia award. Id., at 31.

The Benefits Review Board upheld the award. 9 BRBS 760 (1978). Its order, however, was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, judgment order reported at 598 F.2d 617,8 which squarely held that a "second and separate proceeding in another jurisdiction upon the same injury after a prior recovery in another State [is] precluded by the Full Faith and Credit Clause." 9 We granted certiorari, 444 U.S. 962, 100 S.Ct. 447, 62 L.Ed.2d 374, and now reverse.

I

Respondent contends that the District of Columbia was without power to award petitioner additional compensation because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution or, more precisely, because of the federal statute implementing that Clause.10 An analysis of this contention must begin with two decisions from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
201 cases
  • State ex rel. Leonard v. Hey, 14712
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 14, 1980
    ...the charges are time-worn and stale. Justice William H. Rehnquist perceptively recognized in Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., --- U.S. ----, ----, 100 S.Ct. 2647, 2666, 64 L.Ed.2d 757 (1980), that "(w)henever this Court, or any court, attempts to balance competing interests it risks unde......
  • Cooper v. State of Utah, Civ. No. 87-C-606G.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • December 21, 1987
    ...be unconstitutional.18 Full faith and credit should be afforded such state court judgments. Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., et al., 448 U.S. 261, 264, 100 S.Ct. 2647, 2652, 65 L.Ed.2d 757 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 1738. However, the state judgment would be conclusive only as to the parties an......
  • Allstate Insurance Company v. Hague
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1981
    ...several States from independent sovereignties into a single, unified Nation. See Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 271-272, 100 S.Ct. 2647, 2655-2656, 65 L.Ed.2d 757 (1980) (plurality opinion); Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 276-277, 56 S.Ct. 229, 233-234......
  • Carl v. Children's Hosp., 93-CV-1476.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • September 23, 1997
    ...interests in even handed, consistent and predictable application of legal rules." Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 272, 100 S.Ct. 2647, 2656, 65 L.Ed.2d 757 (1980) (plurality opinion) (footnote omitted). These are important considerations to which any responsible court will......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Workers' Compensation Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • March 31, 2022
    ...625 (En banc – 1977), §8:214 Thomas, v. State of California, 2021 Cal Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 62, §18:13 Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 US 261, 100 SCt 2647, 46 CCC 1358 (1980), §2:270 Thomas v. WCAB, 46 CCC 535 (W/D-1981), §21:253 Thomas v. WCAB, 51 CCC 150 (W/D-1986), §12:21 Thomas......
  • Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Workers' Compensation Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • March 31, 2022
    ...benefits [see Industrial Commission v. McCartin , 330 US 622, 67 SCt 886, 12 CCC 76 (1947), and Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co. , 448 US 261, 100 SCt 2647, 46 CCC 1358 (1980)], although appropriate credit for benefits paid under the out-of-state award should be given. See also McNeil v. ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...v. Union Carbide Agricultural Product Co., 473 U.S. 568, 105 S.Ct. 3325, 87 L.Ed.2d 409 (1985), 596 Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 100 S.Ct. 2647, 65 L.Ed.2d 757 (1980), 999 Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988), 1034 Thompson v. Weste......
  • Extraterritoriality and political heterogeneity in American federalism.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 150 No. 3, January 2002
    • January 1, 2002
    ...was a provision that disallowed the forum from refusing to apply nonforum law where only nonforum law conceivably was applicable. (393) 448 U.S. 261, 284-85 (394) See Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 735 n.2 (1988) (stating that full faith and credit imposes no additional constitutiona......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT