Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): appealing the ALJ’s decision to the Board are exactly the same in LHWCA and DBA cases. Id. at 1113-1115. However, the 1972 amendments also amended the judicial review provisions of the LHWCA to provide direct review of the Board’s decision to the federal court of appeal where the injury occurred, not to the district court. See 33 U.S.C.A. § 921(c); Home Indem. Co., 597 F.2d at 90. Congress has not, however, amended the judicial review provision of the DBA that expressly modified the former judicial review provisions of the LHWCA. Section 3(b) of the DBA still provides, as quoted above, that judicial review of compensation orders lies in the appropriate district court. Section 3(b) controls judicial review of compensation orders in DBA cases. See Home Indem. Co., 597 F.2d at 89 (<HOLDING>); AFIA/CIGNA Worldwide, 930 F.2d at 1115 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that fehbas complete preemption provision closely resembles erisas express preemption provision and precedent interpreting the erisa provision thus provides authority for cases involving the fehba provision (B) holding that if a provision of the dba specifically modifies a provision of the lhwca the dba provision controls in a dba case (C) holding wills more specific provision prevails over general provision (D) holding that defendants testimony that he did not see a provision in the agreement because the plaintiffcounterparty failed to direct him to the provision was insufficient as a matter of law to establish fraud and defendant was therefore bound to the terms of the provision (E) holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them
Output (English): holding that defendants testimony that he did not see a provision in the agreement because the plaintiffcounterparty failed to direct him to the provision was insufficient as a matter of law to establish fraud and defendant was therefore bound to the terms of the provision