Branham v. Terminal Shipping Co.
Decision Date | 29 May 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 5076.,5076. |
Citation | 136 F.2d 655 |
Parties | BRANHAM, Deputy Commissioner of U. S. Employees' Compensation Commission for the Fourth District, v. TERMINAL SHIPPING CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Ward E. Boote, Chief Counsel, U. S. Employees' Compensation Commission, of Washington, D. C. (Bernard J. Flynn, U. S. Atty. and T. Barton Harrington, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Baltimore, Md., and Herbert P. Miller, Associate Counsel, U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
W. Hamilton Whiteford and Palmer R. Nickerson, both of Baltimore, Md. (Due, Nickerson & Whiteford, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, SOPER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges.
This is a proceeding brought in the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, by the appellees, Terminal Shipping Company, employer, and Pennsylvania Threshermen and Farmers Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, insurance carrier, asking for a judicial review of a compensation order filed on July 20, 1942, by the deputy commissioner, appellant herein, in which he directed the employer and insurance carrier to pay to the Treasurer of the United States the sum of $1,000 pursuant to the provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, 33 U.S. C.A. § 901 et seq.
After a hearing the court below filed an opinion finding against the appellant and on November 27, 1942, entered a decree setting aside the compensation order. From this action this appeal was brought.
There is no dispute as to the facts, which were stipulated. As stated by the judge below in his opinion 47 F.Supp. 561, 563 they are as follows:
The statutes under which the appellant made his order are:
Section 33(a) of the Compensation Law which provides: "If on account of a disability or death for which compensation is payable under this Act the person entitled to such compensation determines that some person other than the employer is liable in damages, he may elect, by giving notice, to the deputy commissioner in such manner as the commission may provide, to receive such compensation or to recover damages against such third person."
Section 44(a), (c) (1) of the compensation law provides as follows:
* * * * *
The court below held, that to properly construe these statutes, section 933(c) must be considered. Section 933(c) is as follows: "(c) The payment of such compensation into the fund established in section 944 of this chapter shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the legal representative of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as `representative') to recover damages against such third person, whether or not the representative has notified the deputy commissioner of his election."
It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Longshoremen's Act was adopted from the New York Workmen's Compensation Law, Consol. Laws, c. 67, and that the New York decisions
It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that in construing the Longshoremen's Act the courts should follow the New York decisions citing: Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation v. Monahan, Deputy Commissioner, 1 Cir., 91 F.2d 130; Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation v. Monahan, Deputy Commissioner, 1 Cir., 54 F.2d 349; Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. Marshall, Deputy Commissioner, D.C., 49 F.2d 625; Mahony Co. v. Marshall, Deputy Commissioner, D.C., 46 F.2d 539; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Hoage, Deputy Commissioner, 66 App. D. C., 154, 85 F.2d 411.
It is contended on behalf of the appellee that the Longshoremen's Act is materially different from the New York Compensation Law in the wording of Sec. 933(c) of the federal act and that this difference requires another construction of the Act from that given the New York law by the New York courts.
It is further contended on behalf of the appellees that, at the inception of the case, both the appellant and the appellees treated the mother as a dependent, entitled to compensation, and that the fact that she elected to pursue her remedy against a third party in no way changed her status as a claimant and the fact that she was allowed to make an election proved her status as a claimant entitled to compensation.
In a forceful and detailed discussion of the law involved the court below reached the conclusion that the contentions of the appellees were right and approved the reasoning of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of Federal Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Locke, 60 F.2d 895, 896, where the court said: "* * * Yet it seems clear that the words of section 44(c) (1) requiring the payment of $1,000 into the special fund where the deputy commissioner determines `that there is no person entitled * * * to compensation' for the death of the employee relate only to cases where there is no such person when death occurs and when `questions of dependency' are determined under section 9(f) of the act (33 U.S.C.A. § 909(f)."
We are of the opinion that the reasoning and conclusion of the judge below are correct.
The disputed phrase "where the deputy commissioner determines that there is no person entitled under this chapter to compensation for such death" standing alone is ambiguous with respect to the time as of which the determination is to be made, that is, as of the time of the death of the employee or at the time when the deputy commissioner makes his determination.
In discussing this point the court below said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Parker
...Corrugating Co. v. McManigal, 4 Cir., 41 F.2d 593, 595; Terminal Shipping Co. v. Branham, D.C.Md., 47 F.Supp. 561, 564, affirmed 4 Cir., 136 F.2d 655. It frequently has been judicially said that the Act is to be liberally construed in favor of the injured employe or his dependent family. Ba......
-
Killion v. E&L Transp. Co.
...similarity in the wording of the New York statute and the Federal statute, the Circuit Court of Appeals in Branham v. Terminal Shipping Co., 4 Cir., 136 F.2d 655, at page 659, determined: ‘It is not to be presumed that Congress intended in enacting the Longshoremen's Act that the question o......
-
Voris v. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n
...App.D.C. 154, 85 F.2d 411, 413; Lawson v. Suwanee Fruit & S. S. Co., 336 U.S. 198 at page 205, 69 S.Ct. 503, 93 L.Ed. 611; Branham v. Terminal, 4 Cir., 136 F.2d 655; Case v. Pillsbury, 9 Cir., 148 F.2d 4 Twin Harbor Stevedoring & Tug v. Marshall, 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 513, 516. ...
-
TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION v. Pillsbury
...Assurance Corp. v. Monahan, 1 Cir., 1937, 91 F.2d 130; Terminal Shipping Co. v. Branham, D.C.Md.1942, 47 F.Supp. 561, affirmed, 4 Cir., 1943, 136 F.2d 655. Finally, the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as its name implies, is a compensation statute and invokes wage-compe......