Siems Drake Puget Sound v. O'LEARY

• Decision Date: 07 June 1951
• Docket Number: No. 2524.,2524.
• Citation: 98 F. Supp. 1019
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
• Parties: SIEMS DRAKE PUGET SOUND et al. v. O'LEARY.

98 F. Supp. 1019

SIEMS DRAKE PUGET SOUND et al. v. O'LEARY.

No. 2524.

United States District Court, W. D. Washington, N. D.

June 7, 1951.

Bogle, Bogle & Gates, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff.

J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for defendant.

LEMMON, District Judge.

Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's petition for injunction. For the purpose of the motion the allegations in the petition are deemed admitted. Plaintiff Siems Drake Puget Sound, a partnership, was engaged in military and naval construction work in Alaska under contracts with the United States of America and was an employer within the provisions of the Defense Bases Act, Public Law No. 208, Act of August 16, 1941, 77th Congress, 42 U.S. C.A. §§ 1651 and 1654, inclusive, as amended by Title III of the Act of December 2, 1942 by Public Law No. 784, 77th Congress. Plaintiff, United Pacific Insurance Co., was the insurance carrier for Siems in accordance with the Defense Bases Act. On November 7, 1942, Richard Marshall, an employee of Siems, sustained an injury. The Defendant, Deputy Commissioner of the Fourteenth Compensation District, issued an order allowing Marshall's claim for compensation under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., by which United, as such insurance carrier, paid compensation to Marshall. Marshall died on February 22, 1950, as a result of the injuries. Up to the time of his death he had received from United under the award the aggregate amount of $7,232.14. Marshall left surviving him a widow and two minor children and on March 23, 1950 defendant allowed a claim to the widow in the amount of $18.38 per week and to each of the two children in the amount of $7.88 per week and to the widow the further amount of $400 for funeral expenses.

The dispute concerns the award of March 23, 1950. There is presented the problem as to whether the compensation schedules of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act in effect at the time of the injury or those in effect at the time of the death apply, the death occurring after the amendment of that act but resulting from injuries sustained prior thereto.

The Defense Bases Act as originally adopted stated in the first section thereof that "the provisions of the `Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act', approved March 4, 1927, 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, and as the same may be amended hereafter, shall apply in respect to the * * * death of any employee * * *" (emphasis supplied). This first section of the Act was amended by Title III, Public Law 784, effective December 2, 1942, by omitting the words "and as the same may be amended hereafter". Defendant contends that there is evinced thereby no intention to change the meaning of the original enactment which provided that all amendments to the Longshoremen's Act should apply as well under the Defense Bases Act and that the omission of the last quoted words was for conciseness and simplicity of language. Plaintiffs reply that the change in wording indicates legislative intent to "freeze" compensation rates to those prevailing under the existing provisions of the Longshoremen's Act at the time of its passage.

Looking to the intent of Congress, which must be the basis of resolution of any uncertainty in the statute, we find in Report No. 1315, accompanying Senate Bill 237, which as passed amended the Longshoremen's Act, the following, "If the amendments proposed for the Longshoremen's Act should be enacted, it will not be necessary to make any changes to accomplish similar revisions of the workmen's compensation laws for the District of Columbia and for employees of Government contractors working outside the continental United States. Any changes enacted in respect to the Longshoremen's Act automatically bring employees in the District of Columbia and employees of Government contractors working outside the continental United States under such law by reason of the extension of the Longshoremen's Act as the basic workmen's compensation law for such District and contractors' employees." It appears, therefore, Congress had in mind that the provisions of the Defense Bases Act, the only Act relating to workmen's compensation for employees of government contractors working outside the continental United States, was automatically effected by the changes...