Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation v. Bassett

• Decision Date: 08 April 1943
• Docket Number: No. 287.,287.
• Citation: 50 F. Supp. 488
• Parties: MERRITT-CHAPMAN & SCOTT CORPORATION et al. v. BASSETT, Deputy Com'r, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

50 F. Supp. 488

MERRITT-CHAPMAN & SCOTT CORPORATION et al. v. BASSETT, Deputy Com'r, et al.

No. 287.

District Court, W. D. Michigan, N. D.

April 8, 1943.

Eldredge & Eldredge, of Marquette, Mich., for libellants.

Joseph F. Deeb, U. S. Atty., of Grand Rapids, Mich., for respondent Bassett.

L. E. Garvin, of Marquette, Mich., for respondent Yarabeck.

RAYMOND, District Judge.

The accompanying findings of fact and conclusions of law disclose the nature of the issues and the fact situation from which they arise.

Discussion of the many conflicting authorities cited in the voluminous briefs of counsel could have no value in lessening confusion, uncertainties and complexities which have existed for many years in application of seemingly pertinent decisions to the fact situations of cases as they arise. See Michigan Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 8, page 1312; United States Law Review, Vol. LXVI, No. 11, page 593; 25 A.L.R. 1029; State v. W. C. Dawson & Co., 122 Wash. 572, 211 P. 724, 212 P. 1059, 31 A.L.R. 518. It is sufficient to say that careful examination of the record made before the Deputy Commissioner, and of that made at the hearing in this court, is convincing that the employee in this case was, at the time of the accident, in a "twilight zone" as clearly as was the employee in the case of Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U.S. 249, 63 S.Ct. 225, 87 L.Ed. ___. The principle announced by the majority of the court in that case to the effect that great and presumptive weight must be given to the conclusions of the appropriate federal authorities, is controlling here. In that case it was said (page 256 of 317 U.S., page 229 of 63 S.Ct., 87 L.Ed. ___): "* * * Where there has been a hearing by the federal administrative agency entrusted with broad powers of investigation, fact finding, determination, and award, our task proves easy. There we are aided by the provision of the federal act, 33 U.S.C. § 920, 33 U.S.C.A. § 920, which provides that in proceedings under that act, jurisdiction is to be `presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary.' Fact findings of the agency, where supported by the evidence, are made final. Their conclusion that a case falls within the federal jurisdiction is therefore entitled to great weight and will be rejected only in cases of apparent error. * * *"

In the present case, the court finds no substantial evidence, either upon the record made before the Deputy Commissioner or upon that made in this court, which justifies a finding of "apparent error". On the contrary, the court finds that the record in both instances sustains the jurisdictional fact findings of the Deputy Commissioner. The only exception to the foregoing statement is his finding concerning the distance off shore of the lighthouse foundation, which the Deputy Commissioner found was two miles, but which, by the preponderance of evidence before this court was a distance of approximately 2,800 feet. This difference, in the view of the court, is wholly immaterial.

The attempt by libellants to distinguish between a lighthouse and the foundation thereof is too tenuous to be accorded weight in view of the statutory presumptions and the liberal construction to which the Act is entitled. See Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co. v. Norton, 284 U.S. 408, 52 S.Ct. 187, 76 L.Ed. 366.

An order will be entered dismissing the libel with costs to respondents.

Findings of Fact.

1. This suit is brought under Section 21 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. to review, enjoin, and set aside as contrary to law a compensation award and amended award made by respondent Harry W. Bassett as Deputy Commissioner for the Tenth District of the United States Employees' Compensation Commission in favor of respondent Steve Yarabeck, and against the libellants, based on an accidental injury received by Yarabeck on August 28, 1939, while he was in the employ of libellant, Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation, which company was insured by The Travelers Insurance Company, the other libellant.

2. The existence of the relationship of employer and employee at the time of the injury, and the fact that the employee at the time of the injury was performing services growing out of and incidental to his employment, is not disputed.

3. Trial by jury was waived by written stipulation.

4. The accident on which the awards of the Deputy Commissioner were based occurred within the County of Marquette, Michigan, and within the Western Judicial District of Michigan, as established by Act of Congress.

5. The accident occurred within the Tenth Compensation District, established under the provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

6. Steve Yarabeck filed a claim for compensation against Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation, employer, and The Travelers Insurance Company, insurance carrier, under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'...