Keeffe v. Shipyards, Inc 8212 262
| Decision Date | 14 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | AEROJET-GENERAL,No. 71,71 |
| Citation | 404 U.S. 254,30 L.Ed.2d 424,92 S.Ct. 405 |
| Parties | William M. O'KEEFFE, Deputy Commissioner, Sixth Compensation District, Department of Labor v. SHIPYARDS, INC. —262 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 404 U.S. 1053, 92 S.Ct. 702.
Petitioner, a Labor Department Deputy Commissioner, rejected an employee's claim against respondent under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., on the ground that the proofs failed to establish that his disability was related to conditions of his employment. Thereafter petitioner reopened the case pursuant to § 22 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 922. On the basis of testimony by the employee's personal physician and a commission-appointed doctor, petitioner concluded, contrary to his initial determination, that the disabling condition had in fact been 'materially aggravated and hastened' by the circumstances of employment, and awarded him compensation. The District Court sustained the award but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, one judge dissenting, reversed. 442 F.2d 508. The Court of Appeals held that in the absence of changed conditions or new evidence clearly demonstrating mistake in the initial determination, the 'statute simply does not confer authority upon the Deputy Commissioner to receive additional but cumulative evidence and change his mind.' 442 F.2d, at 513.
Neither the wording of the statute nor its legislative history supports this 'narrowly technical and impractical construction.' Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. Norton, 106 F.2d 137, 138 (CA3 1939). Section 22 of the Act provides:
'Upon his own initiative, or upon the application of any party in interest, on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact by the deputy commissioner, the deputy commissioner may, at any time prior to one year after the date of the last payment of compensation, whether or not a compensation order has been issued, or at any time prior to one year after the rejection of a claim, review a compensation case in accordance with the procedure prescribed in respect of claims in section 919 of this title, and in accordance with such section issue a new compensation order which may terminate, continue, reinstate, increase, or decrease such compensation, or award compensation. * * *' 33 U.S.C. § 922.
Thus, on its face, the section permits a reopening within one year 'because of a mistake in a determination of fact.' There is no limitation to particular factual errors, or to cases involving new evidence or changed circumstances. The Act at one time did authorize reopening only on the 'ground of a change in conditions,' 44 Stat. 1437, but was amended in 1934 expressly to 'broaden the grounds on which a deputy commissioner can modify an award * * * when changed conditions or a mistake in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Youghiogheny and Ohio v. Milliken
...evidence initially submitted." Consolidation Coal Co. v. Worrell, 27 F.3d 227, 230 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting O'Keeffe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc., 404 U.S. 254, 256 (1971)). "If a claimant merely alleges that the ultimate fact (disability due to pneumoconiosis) was wrongly decided, th......
-
Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo
...factual errors or to cases involving new evidence or changed circumstances. See O'Keeffe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc., 404 U.S. 254, 255-256, 92 S.Ct. 405, 406-407, 30 L.Ed.2d 424 (1971) (per curiam ); Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Assn., Inc., 390 U.S. 459, 465, 88 S.Ct. 1140, 1144......
-
Jefferson v. Ziegler Coal Co.
...cumulative evidence, or merely further reflection on the evidence initially submitted." O'Keeffe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc., 404 U.S. 254, 256 (1971) (emphasis added). Invocation of the Section 411(c)(4) Presumption: Total Disability A miner was totally disabled if he had a pulmonar......
-
Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp.
...to avoid injustice resulting from initially incorrect factual determinations. See generally O'Keeffe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc., 404 U.S. 254, 92 S.Ct. 405, 30 L.Ed.2d 424 (1971).The problems discussed in this footnote, of course, do not now confront us because Hastings' compensatio......