Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01008/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01008-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene L. Beynum
Respondent
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Respondent
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 15, 1997 Decided June 5, 1998

No. 97-1008

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,

Petitioner

v.

Eugene L. Beynum and

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs,

Respondents

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Benefits Review Board

Michael D. Dobbs argued the cause for petitioner. With

him on the briefs were Charles P. Monroe and Erik C.J.

Anderson.

John G. Harnishfeger argued the cause for respondent

Beynum. Eric M. May was on the brief.

USCA Case #97-1008 Document #357591 Filed: 06/05/1998 Page 1 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Samuel J. Oshinsky filed the brief for respondent Director,

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. With him on

the brief was Carol A. De Deo.

Before: Williams and Randolph, Circuit Judges, and

Buckley, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: This petition for review of an order of the

Benefits Review Board, brought by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), raises a preliminary question relating to our jurisdiction. The question deals

with the effect of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and

Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat.

1321, on the adjudication of a claim arising under the District

of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act of 1928, D.C.

Code s 36-501 et seq. The Appropriations Act provides, in

relevant part, that no funds "may be used by the Secretary of

Labor after September 12, 1996, to review a decision under

the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33

U.S.C. 901 et seq.) that has been appealed and that has been

pending before the Benefits Review Board for more than 12

months." Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-219.

The Act further provides that any decision pending review for

more than one year and not acted on by September 12, 1996,

is considered affirmed as of that date for purposes of obtaining appellate review. Id.

On May 4, 1995, Eugene L. Beynum, a WMATA employee,

sought Board review of an administrative law judge's decision

that he had not established a change in his condition entitling

him to permanent total disability benefits. The Board finally

decided the matter on December 10, 1996, by which time the

appeal had been pending for approximately 19 months. The

Board's order remanded the case to the ALJ. If the Appropriations Act applies, the final decision we have before us is

the ALJ's decision, summarily affirmed by operation of law

on September 12, 1996. On the other hand, if the Appropriations Act does not apply, we have no final decision and hence

USCA Case #97-1008 Document #357591 Filed: 06/05/1998 Page 2 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

no jurisdiction--a Board decision to remand is not a final

order within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. s 921(c).

History helps explain the interaction between the Appropriations Act and D.C. workers' compensation law. In 1928

Congress, acting in its capacity as legislature for the District

of Columbia, enacted the District of Columbia Workmen's

Compensation Act. Having no substantive provisions of its

own, the 1928 Act incorporated by reference the provisions of

what was then entitled the Longshoremen's and Harbor

Workers' Compensation Act, "including all amendments that

may hereafter be made thereto." Fifty years later, after the

District had been granted home rule, the City Council passed

the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act of 1979.

See D.C. Code Ann. s 36-301 et seq. The 1979 Act, which

expressly repealed the earlier law, went into effect July 26,

1982. For employees whose injuries occurred before this

date, the 1928 Act is kept alive by the General Savings

Statute, 1 U.S.C. s 109. See Keener v. WMATA, 800 F.2d

1173, 1175 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Beynum, who suffered a workrelated injury on December 29, 1978, resulting in his partial

permanent disability, falls into this category.

We have confronted this situation, or one very analogous,

once before. Keener v. WMATA considered the effect of the

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act Amendments of 1984 on claims arising under the 1928 Act. Following the lead of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in

O'Connell v. Maryland Steel Erectors, Inc., 495 A.2d 1134

(D.C. 1985), we concluded that, "as the repeal of the 1928 Act

had the effect of severing the application of the Longshoremen's Act to the District of Columbia in 1982, the subsequent

1984 amendments were without effect on the law of the

District." 800 F.2d at 1175. Once an act has been repealed,

it may no longer be amended--at least not by the crossreference system established by the 1928 Act and mooted by

the 1979 Act. This is despite its continued existence in "a

state of suspended animation" for the purpose of preserving

the rights and liabilities created under it. Id. at 1177.

While Keener holds that amendments to the Longshore and

Harbor Workers' Compensation Act do not affect claims

arising under the now-repealed D.C. law, the question remains whether the Appropriations Act is such an amendment.

We believe it is, although it is not labeled as such. The

Appropriations Act addresses the finality of decisions under

the Longshore Act, thus altering its provisions. That the

alteration occurred in appropriations legislation is of no moment. "Congress ... may amend substantive law in an

appropriations statute, as long as it does so clearly." Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc'y, 503 U.S. 429, 440 (1992); see

also American Fed'n of Gov't Employees, AFL-CIO v. Campbell, 659 F.2d 157, 161 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

Still, one might reason that Congress wanted to include

claims decisions issued under the repealed 1928 D.C. law

because it did not specifically exclude them from the reach of

USCA Case #97-1008 Document #357591 Filed: 06/05/1998 Page 3 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the Appropriations Act, as it did for "any decision issued

under the Black Lung Benefits Act." Pub. L. No. 104-134,

110 Stat. 1321-219. (The Black Lung Benefits Act, like the

1928 law, adopts many of the Longshore Act's provisions.) A

similar argument was made in O'Connell. The court's response, we believe, is conclusive: "The short answer to this

contention is that there was no occasion for Congress to

exclude expressly from the application of provisions of the

new law any statute already repealed." 495 A.2d at 1144.

For all of these reasons, we hold that the Appropriations

Act is without effect on the operation of the 1928 law or the

adjudication of claims arising under it. The Board had

jurisdiction to decide Beynum's appeal even though it had

been pending for more than one year. Since the Board's

order remanded the case to the ALJ for further consideration, it is not appealable. Under 33 U.S.C. s 921(c), judicial

review may be had only of final orders. A Board order

remanding the claim to an ALJ is not in that category. See

WMATA v. Director, OWCP, 824 F.2d 94 (D.C. Cir. 1987);

see also Director, OWCP v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 853 F.2d

11 (1st Cir. 1988); Newpark Shipbuilding & Repair v.

Roundtree, 723 F.2d 399 (5th Cir. 1984); Director, OWCP v.

Brodka, 643 F.2d 159 (3d Cir. 1981). Accordingly, we dismiss

the petition for want of jurisdiction.

So ordered.

USCA Case #97-1008 Document #357591 Filed: 06/05/1998 Page 4 of 4