Army and Air Force Exchange Service v. Hanson
| Decision Date | 07 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 2436. |
| Citation | 250 F. Supp. 857 |
| Parties | ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE and Insurance Company of North America, Plaintiffs, v. C. F. HANSON, Deputy Commissioner of Labor, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Robertson, Castle & Anthony, Dennis O'Connor, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiffs.
Herman T. F. Lum, U. S. Atty., by Yoshimi Hayashi, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant.
Plaintiffs seek a review of a workmen's compensation award granted by defendant Deputy Commissioner of Labor, pursuant to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was not timely filed.
Section 21(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 921 (a), provides:
"A compensation order shall become effective when filed in the office of the deputy commissioner as provided in section 19, and, unless proceedings for the suspension or setting aside of such order are instituted as provided in subdivision (b) of this section, shall become final at the expiration of the thirtieth day thereafter."
Section 19(e), 33 U.S.C. 919(e) provides:
"(e) The order rejecting the claim or making the award (referred to in this chapter as a compensation order) shall be filed in the office of the deputy commissioner, and a copy thereof shall be sent by registered mail or by certified mail to the claimant and to the employer at the last known address of each."
The Complaint was filed more than thirty days following the filing of the compensation order, but less than 33 days following the filing of the order. Plaintiffs contend that the thirty-day period is extended by virtue of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
Rule 6(e) does not help the plaintiff, however, because the time for filing a complaint to review a compensation order is not set forth as thirty days after service of a copy of the order. It is true that the service of a copy of the order is necessary for its validity; but nothing in the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act indicates that the thirty-day period is to commence after service of a copy of the order. On the contrary, a reading of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beach v. Noble Drilling Corporation
...see also Barry, slip op. at 8-9. The fact that service by mail may also be required does not undermine this interpretation. Id.; Hanson, 250 F.Supp. at 858-859. See also Welsh v. Elevating Boats, Inc., 698 230 (5th Cir. 1983) (reaching this result under either Rule 6(e) or Rule 26(c) of the......
-
Goldstein v. Barron
...Acres of Land, More or Less, in Monroe County, Tennessee, 425 F.Supp. 929 (E.D.Tenn.1976); Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. v. Hanson, Deputy Comm'r of Labor, 250 F.Supp. 857, 858-859 (D.Hawaii 1966). Cf. In re Levens, 563 F.2d 1223 (5th Cir. 1977). It follows that the plaintiff's furnishing of......
-
Ramos v. Estate of Elsenbach
...proscribed limitations period "ran from the date the order was filed," and not from the date of service); Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. v. Hanson, 250 F.Supp. 857, 858–59 (D.Haw.1966) (holding that FRCP Rule 6(e) did not apply to enlarge the time for filing a complaint to review an order bec......
-
Lauzon v. Strachan Shipping Co.
...held not applicable to the time period necessary for a compensation order under the LHWA to become final. Army & Air Force Exchange Service v. Hanson, 250 F.Supp. 857 (D.Haw., 1966). A reading of the entire act indicates that the remedies provided by the Act were meant to be prompt remedies......