McCormick SS Co. v. UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES'C. COM.
Decision Date | 13 March 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 6817.,6817. |
Citation | 64 F.2d 84 |
Parties | McCORMICK S. S. CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Bronson, Bronson & Slaven, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.
Geo. J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and Leo C. Dunnell, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing appellants' bill of complaint in which they sought an injunction restraining the enforcement of a compensation award made by appellees in favor of Verner Kallstrom.
On February 11, 1928, while an employee of the McCormick Steamship Company, Verner Kallstrom suffered an injury to his fourth cervical vertebra, which resulted in a permanent partial disability, coming under section 8(c) (21) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 US CA § 908(c) (21), entitling him to an award of compensation for his disability amounting to "66 2/3 per centum of the difference between his average weekly wages before his injury and his wage-earning capacity thereafter in the same employment or otherwise. * * *" Prior to his injury, Kallstrom had acted as foreman of his own stevedoring gang, and had occasionally worked as a stevedore. Several compensation orders have been made from time to time by the appellee commission covering Kallstrom's disability, but it will be sufficient to consider, in addition to the order complained of, only the last order prior thereto, which was made on July 5, 1930. The order of July 5, 1930, fixed the compensation to be paid to Kallstrom at $3.96 a week based on the wages earned by him from November 4, 1929, to April 11, 1930, which aggregated $717.01, a loss of $5.94 a week from his average weekly earnings prior to the date of his injury. The order complained of in this proceeding is as follows:
Appellants contend that this order was based upon Kallstrom's decrease in his actual wages after September 18, 1930, rather than a decrease of his wage-earning capacity, and that therefore the award was not in accordance with law. Section 8(c) (21) of the act 33 USCA § 908(c) (21), permits a "reconsideration of the degree of such impairment," that is, of wage-earning capacity, and section 22 of the act (33 USCA § 922), authorizes a modification of the order due to a "change in conditions," but we do not think this applies to a change in earnings due to economic conditions. We agree with the statement of Commissioner A. J. Pillsbury of the California Industrial Accident Commission, concurred in by his associates, in an early decision of that commission (Johnson v. Cluett Peabody Co. et al., 2 C. I. A. C. 10, decided in January, 1915) as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo
...to which changed conditions may justify modifying an award. Rambo next contends that following McCormick S.S. Co. v. United States Employees' Compensation Comm'n, 64 F.2d 84 (CA9 1933), the Courts of Appeals unanimously held that "change in conditions" refers only to changes in physical con......
-
Fleetwood v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co.
...F.2d 23 (1st Cir.1982); Burly Welding Works, Inc. v. Lawson, 141 F.2d 964 (5th Cir.1944); and McCormick Steamship Company v. U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, 64 F.2d 84 (9th Cir.1933). We review the facts in these cases in some detail in order to show that they did not reject the vi......
-
Lucero v. Climax Molybdenum Co.
...23, 25 (1st Cir.1982); Burley Welding Works, Inc., v. Lawson, 141 F.2d 964, 966 (5th Cir.1944); McCormick S.S. Co. v. United States Employees' Compensation Comm'n, 64 F.2d 84, 86 (9th Cir.1933); Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Lowe, 14 F.Supp. 280, 281 (S.D.N.Y.1936); but cf. Fleetwood v. Newpor......
-
J. A. Jones Const. Co. v. Martin
...held that this means a change in the employee's physical condition and no other conditions. See McCormick S.S. Co. v. U.S. Employees' Compensation Com., 9th Cir., 64 F.2d 84, 86; Pillsbury v. Alaska Packers Ass'n., 9th Cir., 85 F.2d 758, 760; Burley Welding Works v. Lawson, 5th Cir., 141 F.......