Budson Company, Contract 926 v. Oikari
Decision Date | 21 April 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 65 C 1635.,65 C 1635. |
Parties | BUDSON COMPANY, CONTRACT 926 and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Plaintiffs, v. Elmer E. OIKARI and George A. Byrne, Deputy Commissioner, United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, Tenth Compensation District, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Van Duzer, Gershon & Jordan, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Hultstrand, Abate & Wivoda, Hibbing, Minn., for defendant Elmer E. Oikari.
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., for defendant Byrne, Deputy Com'r, U. S. Dept. of Labor.
MEMORANDUM, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT
The complaint herein seeks to review a compensation order under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act as extended by the Defense Base Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq.
All parties agree that there is no genuine issue of fact and accordingly all have filed motions for summary judgment, presenting the following questions of law.
Claimant defendant was injured in his employment at Ladd Air Force Base, Alaska. The Defense Base Act, 42 U.S. C. § 1651(a) (2) at that time provided coverage for "any employment * * * upon any lands occupied or used by the United States for military or naval purposes in any Territory or possession outside the continental United States * * including Alaska * * *."
Claimant's injury occurred May 8, 1959, five months after Alaska was admitted to statehood. Had it occurred before statehood while Alaska was still a territory there is no question but that the claimant would have been covered by the provisions of the Defense Base Act. The claimant, joined by the Bureau of Employees Compensation, argues that the act remained in full force and effect until the adoption by Congress of the Alaska Omnibus Act of June 25, 1959, which act amended the Defense Base Act by deleting the reference to Alaska. Section 47(g) of the Omnibus Act provides in part:
"* * * with respect to injuries or deaths occurring on or after January 3, 1959, and prior to the effective date of these amendments, claims filed by employees engaged in the State of Alaska in any of the employments covered by the Defense Base Act * * may be adjudicated under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Alaska instead of the Defense Base Act." (Emphasis supplied.)
The legal dispute centers on the meaning of the word may in the Omnibus Act. Claimant and the Bureau of Employment Compensation argue that during the six month interval between Alaska statehood and the effective date of the Omnibus Act a claimant had a choice of remedies, the Workmen's Compensation Act of Alaska and the Defense Base Act.
Plaintiffs argue that after statehood the application of the Defense Base Act terminated. They point out that under the provisions of the Statehood Act the territorial laws in force in the Territory of Alaska continued in full force and effect, including the Alaska Workmen's Compensation Act. The use of the key word may, according to plaintiffs was to approve the result achieved by the Alaska Statehood Act, which made the Alaska Compensation Act the sole remedy. Plaintiffs also point out that in other states local compensation acts are the sole remedy for employees on military bases. (40 U.S.C. § 290)
To rebut the position of plaintiffs, claimant and the Bureau of Employee Compensation appropriately cite Senate Report No. 331, 86th Congress, 1st Session, page 21, U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News p. 1675, which accompanied the Omnibus Act:
I find the Senate report persuasive and consistent with my own reading of the Act, particularly the construction of the word may. I conclude, therefore, that claimant had a dual remedy available to him during the six month period from statehood to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davila-Perez v. Lockheed Martin Corp., DAVILA-PERE
...became a state, see Alaska Omnibus Act of June 25, 1959 § 40, Pub. L. 86-70, 73 Stat. 141, 150; Budson Co., Contract 926 v. Oikari, 270 F. Supp. 611, 612-13 (N.D. Ill. 1967), it is untenable that Puerto Rico is close enough to a state to be excluded from the Defense Base Act. Likewise, we a......
-
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. Bergeron
...claim letter directed to an employer's insurance carrier which in turn was transmitted to the deputy commissioner, Budson Co. v. Oikari, 270 F.Supp. 611, 614 (N.D.Ill. 1967); (4) an attorney's letter to the deputy commissioner requesting a formal application blank that was never sent, Louis......
- Mead Johnson & Company v. Baby's Formula Service, Inc.
-
McKinney v. O'LEARY
...81 S.Ct. 165, 5 L.Ed.2d 105; Beegan v. Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Company, 9 Cir. 1965, 346 F.2d 857, 860; Budson Company, Contract 926 v. Oikari, N.D.Ill.1967, 270 F.Supp. 611, 614. ...