Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01250/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01250-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Respondent
Electrospace Systems
Respondent
Larry Hice
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 1, 1998 Decided September 29, 1998

No. 97-1250

Larry Hice,

Petitioner

v.

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs,

United States Department of Labor

and

Electrospace Systems, Inc.,

Respondents

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Benefits Review Board

Benjamin T. Boscolo argued the cause and filed the brief

for petitioner.

Samuel J. Oshinsky, Counsel, U.S. Department of Labor,

argued the cause for respondent Director, OWCP. With him

on the brief was Carol A. De Deo, Associate Solicitor.

USCA Case #97-1250 Document #385463 Filed: 09/29/1998 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Roy D. Axelrod argued the cause and filed the briefs for

respondent Electrospace Systems, Inc.

Before: Wald, Williams and Tatel, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Tatel.

Tatel, Circuit Judge: In search of a court with jurisdiction

to hear his appeal from a Benefits Review Board decision

denying him workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained while working on a U.S. military base in Australia,

petitioner first filed his appeal in the Ninth Circuit and now

seeks to have his case heard here, arguing that we have

jurisdiction because the administrative law judge who adjudicated his claim has his office in Washington, D.C. Because

we hold that the location of the office of the District Director

for the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs who handled petitioner's case--the District Director for Baltimore,

Maryland--determines the proper forum to hear petitioner's

appeal, and because Fourth Circuit precedent requires judicial review of Benefits Review Board decisions to occur first

in district courts, we transfer this case to the U.S. District

Court for the District of Maryland.

I.

The jurisdictional issue presented here arises from the fact

that the two statutes involved in this case contain different

provisions for judicial review. The first of these statutes, the

Longshore Act of 1927, Act of Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 509, 44 Stat.

1424 (codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. ss 901-950 (1994)),

established a comprehensive workers' compensation program

to provide medical, disability, and survivor benefits to longshoremen and their families for work-related injuries and

death. See 33 U.S.C. ss 902-904 (1970) (amended 1972).

Under the program, injured workers filed claims with local

deputy commissioners for the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, who adjudicated disputes. See id. s 919.

Dissatisfied claimants appealed to "the federal district court

in which the injury occurred." Id. s 921(b).

USCA Case #97-1250 Document #385463 Filed: 09/29/1998 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Congress enacted the second statute involved in this case,

the Defense Base Act of 1941, Act of Aug. 16, 1941, ch. 357,

55 Stat. 622 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. ss 1651-1654

(1994)), in order to extend the benefits of the Longshore Act

to individuals working on military bases outside the United

States. Because nothing in the Longshore Act provided for

either the filing of claims or the appeal of benefits determinations for injuries occurring outside of the country, section 3 of

the Defense Base Act (1) authorized the Secretary of Labor

to create compensation districts for all regions of the world

and assign them to deputy commissioners throughout the

United States, see 42 U.S.C. s 1653(a) (1994); 20 C.F.R.

s 704.101 (1998), and (2) provided for judicial review "in the

United States district court of the judicial district wherein is

located the office of the deputy commissioner whose compensation order is involved." 42 U.S.C. s 1653(b). As originally

enacted, the two statutes worked together to provide for

benefits determinations and judicial review for covered workers anywhere in the world. All appeals were heard by U.S.

District Courts--for injuries occurring in the United States,

appeals went to the district court for the district where the

injury occurred; for injuries occurring outside the United

States, appeals went to the district court with jurisdiction

over the deputy commissioner who issued the compensation

order.

In 1972, Congress made two changes to the Longshore Act

that created the jurisdictional issue at the heart of this case.

First, it split the role of the deputy commissioner with

respect to the handling of workers' compensation claims by

transferring all hearing functions to administrative law

judges. See Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-576, s 14, 86 Stat.

1251, 1261 (codified at 42 U.S.C. s 919(d) (1994)). Second, it

established the Benefits Review Board to hear administrative

appeals of ALJ decisions and amended the judicial review

provisions to provide that "[a]ny person adversely affected

or aggrieved by a final order of the Board may obtain a review of that order in the United States court of appeals for

the circuit in which the injury occurred." Pub. L. 92-576,

s 15(a), 86 Stat. 1251, 1261-62 (codified at 42 U.S.C. s 921(c)

(1994)) (emphasis added).

For injuries occurring within the United States, the judicial

review provisions of the amended Longshore Act remained

unambiguous: A dissatisfied claimant now appealed adverse

Benefits Review Board decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the "circuit in which the injury occurred." But Congress

made no corresponding change to the Defense Base Act,

leaving workers injured outside the United States with some

uncertainty about which courts had jurisdiction to hear their

appeals. Would they still follow the plain language of section

3(b) of the Defense Base Act and take their cases to the

district court "of the judicial district wherein is located the

office of the deputy commissioner whose compensation order

is involved"? Or in view of the 1972 amendments' transfer of

adjudicatory authority to ALJs, would claimants appeal to the

district court "wherein is located the office of the administraUSCA Case #97-1250 Document #385463 Filed: 09/29/1998 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

tive law judge"? And did Congress really intend to create a

dual scheme under which workers injured within the United

States would appeal Benefits Review Board decisions directly

to courts of appeals, while workers injured on military bases

outside the country would appeal first to district courts, and

then to courts of appeals? Or notwithstanding the 1972

amendments' use of the phrase "the circuit in which the

injury occurred," did Congress actually intend to require even

those injured outside the United States also to appeal directly

to circuit courts?

Seven years ago petitioner Larry Hice suffered a heart

attack while working on a military base in Australia for

respondent Electrospace Systems, Inc. He filed his workers'

compensation claim with the district director in Hawaii, who

then transferred the case to the district director in Baltimore

because that office was closest to Hice's U.S. residence. (The

regulations implementing the Longshore Act have substituted

the term district director for deputy commissioner. "The

substitution is purely an administrative one, and in no way

effects (sic) the authority of or the powers granted and the

responsibilities imposed by the statute on that position." 20

C.F.R. s 702.105 (1998).)

The Baltimore District Director assigned Hice's case to an

ALJ in Washington, D.C. Following a hearing, the ALJ

USCA Case #97-1250 Document #385463 Filed: 09/29/1998 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

denied Hice's claim. The Benefits Review Board, also in

Washington, affirmed the ALJ's decision. Hice then sought

judicial review of the Board's decision in the Ninth Circuit,

presumably because that circuit's jurisdiction includes the

office of the District Director of Hawaii, or perhaps because

the Ninth Circuit is the circuit closest to Australia. Realizing

that he had chosen the wrong forum for his appeal and

emphasizing that the ALJ who decided his case had his office

in the District of Columbia, Hice asked the Ninth Circuit to

transfer his case either to the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia or to this Court. The Ninth Circuit

transferred the case here, relying on its decision in Pearce v.

Director, OWCP, 603 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1979), which said that

judicial review of Defense Base Act claims lies in the circuit

court with jurisdiction over the office of the district director

"or administrative law judge whose compensation order is

involved." Id. at 771.

The parties' original briefs in this Court focused exclusively

on the merits of Hice's claim. On our own motion, we

directed the parties to brief the question whether the Defense

Base Act requires transfer of this case to the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia or to the U.S. District

Court for the District of Maryland. Hice v. Director, OWCP,

No. 97-1250 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 10, 1997). We also severed this

jurisdictional question from the merits. Hice v. Director,

OWCP, No. 97-1250 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 5, 1998).

II.

In their briefs on the jurisdictional issue, all three parties

argue that the 1972 amendments to the Longshore Act

amended the Defense Base Act and now require that a court

of appeals, not a district court, hear Hice's appeal even

though his injuries were not sustained in the United States.

Both Hice and Electrospace argue that this court should

retain jurisdiction because the ALJ who heard Hice's case has

his office in Washington, D.C. In his brief, the Director of

the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs urges us to

transfer the case to the Fourth Circuit because the office of

the district director handling Hice's claim is in Baltimore.

We understand Hice and Electrospace would prefer to have

this seven-year-old case resolved here and now. We also

understand the Director's preference for a uniform system of

judicial review under which review of both Longshore Act and

Defense Base Act claims would occur only in courts of

appeals. But we cannot quite so easily disregard the Defense

Base Act's requirement that judicial review of claims under

that act occur in the "United States district court of the

judicial district wherein is located the office of the deputy

commissioner [now district director] whose compensation order is involved." 42 U.S.C. s 1653(b) (1994) (emphasis added). Nothing in either the language or legislative history of

the 1972 amendments to the Longshore Act suggests that

Congress meant to amend section 3(b) of the Defense Base

Act. Indeed, Congress's choice of the words "circuit in which

USCA Case #97-1250 Document #385463 Filed: 09/29/1998 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the injury occurred" suggests that it did not intend the

judicial review provisions of the amended Longshore Act to

cover injuries occurring outside the United States. For these

reasons, and because Hice seeks benefits under the Defense

Base Act, we think it best to begin with that act's jurisdictional provision. Given that the 1972 amendments shifted deputy

commissioners' hearing authority to ALJs, we must determine whether the district director (in this case, the District

Director for Baltimore) or the ALJ (in this case, with an

office in Washington, D.C.) is, for all practical purposes, the

deputy commissioner as provided in the original statute.

Relying on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Pearce, Hice and

Electrospace argue that ALJs now stand in the shoes of

deputy commissioners for the purpose of determining the

proper court for judicial review. According to Electrospace,

the ALJ, not the district director, decides the dispute as to

compensation, and it is the ALJ's "compensation order [that]

is involved." Id.

The Director argues that the 1972 transfer of hearing

authority from deputy commissioners to ALJs had no effect

on the Defense Base Act's requirement that benefits determinations be reviewed by the district court of the district

"wherein is located the office of the deputy commissioner

whose compensation order is involved." According to the

USCA Case #97-1250 Document #385463 Filed: 09/29/1998 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Director, the location of the ALJ who decides a compensation

claim is "utterly fortuitous" and "generally has no bearing on

any aspect of the case." Director's Brief at 4. "The cite (sic)

of the hearing is generally not the site of the ALJ's office.

Indeed, ALJ's frequently travel nation-wide to hear cases."

Id. In contrast, the Director points out, cases are assigned to

the district director closest to the claimant's U.S. residence.

Although the ALJ adjudicated the claim in this case, district

directors issue compensation orders when no factual dispute

exists between the parties. In every case, moreover, district

directors file and serve compensation orders and retain continuing jurisdiction to resolve medical disputes that arise

after initial adjudication of claims. See 33 U.S.C. ss 907,

919(e). District directors also have authority to transfer

claims to other districts "for the purpose of making investigation, taking testimony, making physical examination or taking

such other necessary action therein as may be directed." Id.

s 919(g).

Though we owe the Director no Chevron deference on this

jurisdictional issue, see Ramey v. Bowsher, 9 F.3d 133, 137

n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1993), we agree that the location of the office of

the district director determines the proper forum for judicial

review. Despite the transfer of adjudicative functions to

ALJs, the Director has made a convincing case that district

directors remain the officials in the Department of Labor

primarily responsible for workers' compensation claims. To

hold, as Hice and Electrospace urge, that jurisdiction travels

with the ALJ who happens to hear a particular claim would

add even more variability and uncertainty to the confusion

surrounding judicial review under the Defense Base Act. We

are aware that Pearce mentions the location of the ALJ's

office as a possible basis for determining which court has

jurisdiction, but we view that language as dictum because the

compensation order in that case arose from a deputy commissioner's decision, not an ALJ's. We thus hold that section

3(b) of the Defense Base Act governs the jurisdictional issue

here: The location of the deputy commissioner, now the

district director, who handled Hice's claim determines the

proper court to hear his appeal.

USCA Case #97-1250 Document #385463 Filed: 09/29/1998 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

III.

Interpreting the words "deputy commissioner" in the Defense Base Act to mean the district director does not resolve

this case. We must also consider whether, notwithstanding

section 3(b)'s vesting of jurisdiction in district courts, the 1972

amendments to the Longshore Act require that we transfer

this case to the Fourth Circuit. Although the Director's brief

argues that the Fourth Circuit is the proper forum for Hice's

appeal, at oral argument he took what we believe to be a

more sensible position: Relying on the Fourth Circuit's decision in Lee v. Boeing, 123 F.3d 801 (4th Cir. 1997), the

Director now urges us to transfer this case directly to the

U.S. District Court with jurisdiction over Baltimore. Facing

precisely the same issue presented here, the Fourth Circuit

held that the unambiguous language of the Defense Base Act

requires cases involving injuries occurring outside the United

States to be heard by district courts, not by courts of appeals:

Since section 3(b) of the DBA unambiguously provides

that initial judicial review of Board decisions in DBA

cases lies in the district court, "jurisprudential modification of its plain statutory language would amount to

judicial legislation."

We realize that our conclusion results in a somewhat

cumbersome and duplicative review procedure in DBA

cases and that Congress may not have made a conscious

decision to create such a procedure. However, "it is not

our function to correct Congressional oversight.... It

is for Congress to eliminate any redundant steps insinuated by the 1972 amendments to the LHWCA." We

must enforce section 3(b) according to its plain, unambiguous language. Accordingly, we conclude that we do not

have jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal.

Lee, 123 F.3d at 806 (internal citations omitted) (ellipsis in

original). The Fifth and Sixth Circuits have reached precisely the same result. See AFIA/CIGNA Worldwide, 930 F.2d

USCA Case #97-1250 Document #385463 Filed: 09/29/1998 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1111 (5th Cir. 1991); Home Indemnity Co. v. Stillwell, 597

F.2d 87 (6th Cir. 1979). While Congress's use of the phrase

"in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which

the injury occurred" leaves us inclined to agree with the

Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits, we need not decide that

issue for ourselves. Because we have held that under the

Defense Base Act the location of the district director--here,

Baltimore--identifies the location of judicial review, see pp.

5-7 supra, and because the Fourth Circuit has plainly held

that cases arising within its jurisdiction should be heard first

by U.S. District Courts, we transfer this case to the U.S.

District Court for the District of Maryland.

So ordered.

USCA Case #97-1250 Document #385463 Filed: 09/29/1998 Page 9 of 9