Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60251 RO BE RT A NDR EP ONT P et i t i on er v. M URPHY EX PL ORAT I ON AND P RODUCTI ON CO; L I BERTY M UTUAL I NS URA NCE C O; DI RE CT OR , OF F I CE OFW OR KE R' S C OMPE NS AT I ON P RO GR AMS , US DE P AR T M ENT OFLAB OR R espon den t s P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder o f t he Bene f

i t s Rev i e w Boa r d ( 08- 0269) B e fo r e G A R W O O D , D E N N IS , a n dP R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * O n M a y 1 4 , 19 9 9 , cl a i m a n t- p eti ti on er R ob ert A n d r ep on t (“A n d rep on t”) i nj u red his l ef

tkn ee du ri n g t h e course of his e m p loym en tw i t h em pl oyerresp on d en t M u rp h y E xp l ora ti on & P rod u cti on C o. ( “M u rp h y”). H e w a s ab l e to c ont i nue w or ki ngo n a se ven- days

- on, s eve n- days

- of f s c hedul e unt i lA pril21, 2000. A tt hatt i m e, he be c am e t em por ar i l y t ot al l y d i sa b l ed bec ause of f ive s u r g e r ie s o n h is k n e e . F r o m A p r il 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 to D e c e m b e r1 2 , 2 0 0 1 , M u r p h yp a id A ndre pontc om pensa t i on f orte m por ar y t ot aldi sa bi l i t y. Th e t r eat i ng physi c i an f ou n d that A n drepon treached m axim u m m edi cali m provem en tas of D ecem ber United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk2

13, 200 1. A f

t er D ecem ber 12, 200 1, M u rph y vol u n t a ri l y i n i t i ated pay m en tof com pens at i o n f

o rpe r m ane ntpa r t i aldi s ab i l i t y ba s e d o n at w e nt y- s i x pe r c e nt p e r m a n e n t im p a ir m e n t o f th e le ft le g . O n N o ve m be r1 8, 2 00 2, A ndr e po ntf i l e d ac l ai m f

o rc o m pe ns at i o n wi t h t he D ep a rtm en t of

L a b or’ s O ffic e of W ork ers’C om p en sa ti on P rog ra m s ( “O W C P ”) u n d e r th e L o n g sh o re a n dH a rb o r W o rk e rs ’C o m p e n sa tion A ct (“L H W C A”), c o dif i e d a t3 3 U . S. C . §§ 901- 95 0, f o rpe r m ane ntt o t aldi s ab i l i t y. M ur phy c o nt i nue d t o pa y Andr e po ntc o m pe ns at i o n f o rpe r m ane ntpa r t i aldi s ab i l i t y. The O W CP ’ s Of

f i c e o f t he D i s t r i c tD i r e c t o rhe l d a n i nf o r m alc o nfe r e nc e w i t h t he pa r t i e s on Sep t e m be r25, 200 3, i n w hi c h t he e xa m i ne rc o nc l ude d t hatM ur phy hade s t ab l i s he d t he a va i l ab i l i t y o f s ui t ab l e a l t e r nat e e m pl o ym e nta nd M ur phy d idn o t o w e a n yfu r th e rco m p e n s a tio n . T h e e m p l o y e ra c c e p te dth is r ec om m endat i on. C l ai m antr eques t ed t he c l ai m ber ef er r ed t o a n adm i ni st r at ive l aw j u dg e. T he a dm i ni s t r at ive l aw j udg e f o und M ur phyha d e s t ab l i s he d t he ava i l abili t y of

sui ta b le al t erna t e em pl oym en tbased on a j ob i den t i f i ed on F ebru ary 1 7, 200 3 an d theref ore no l on ger ow ed com pen sati on past t h at date. H ow ever , t he c l ai m antw as al so aw ar ded c om pensa t i on f orper m anentt ot al di s ab i l i t y (no tj us tthe t w e nt y- s i x pe r c e ntpa r t i aldi s ab i l i t y pa ym e nt s t he c o m p a n yh a dp a id ) fr o m D e c e m b e r1 3 , 2 0 0 1 to F e b r u a r y1 7 , 2 0 0 3 . C l ai m ant ’ s c ounse l s t hen subm i t t ed a pet i t i on t o the adm i ni st r at ive l aw j u dg e requesti n g att orneys’ fees pu rsuan t t o L H W C Asec t i on s 28( a)

- (b) , codi f i ed at 33 U . S . C . § 928(a)

- (b) . T h e adm i n i st rat ive l aw j u dg e hel d M u rph yli able f or at t or neys ’fee s bec ause t h e cl ai m antob t ai ned gr eat erc om pensa t i on t han M u rph y h ad i n i t i al l y agreedt o pay . M u rph y t h en app eal ed the aw ard of att orneys’fees. T h e B en ef i t s R evi ew B oard ( “ B R B ” ) , i n a spl i t deci si on , agreed w i t h M urphy and deni ed t he pet i t i oner ’ s c ounse l any att or neys ’fee s bec ause ( a) M urphy w as vo l untar i l y payi ng c l ai m antc om pensa t i on f orper m a n en tpar t i al3

di s ab i l i t y w he n t he cl ai m antf i l e d hi s cl ai m fo rper m ane ntt o t aldi s ab i l i t y, a nd (b) M ur phyha d a c c e pt e d t he di s t r i c tdir e c t o r ’ s r e c o m m e nda t i o n no tt o pa y any f u r t h e rc o mp e n s a t i o n . A n d r e p o n tt i me l yp e t i t i o n s t h i s c o u r tf o rr e v i e w. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW

“ Thi s Cour tc o nduc t s ade no vo r e vi e w o f t he BR B’ s r ul i ngs o f l aw, o w i ng th em n o d eferen ce b eca u se th e B R B i s n ot a p oli cy m a k i n g a ge n cy . ” PoolCo. v. Cooper , 274 F . 3d 173 , 177 ( 5th C i r. 200 1) (ci t ati on s om i t t ed). “ B u tt h i s cou rtdoes af f o r d S ki d m ore d e fe r e n c e to th e D ir e c to r ’ s in te r p r e ta tio n s o f th e L H W C A . . . . U n der t h i s app roach, t h e am ou n tof deference ow ed t h e D i rect or’ s i n t erpret ati on
‘ w i l ldep en d u pon t h e t h orough n ess evi den t i n i t s consi derati on , t h e val i di t y of its re a s o n in g , its co n s is te n c yw ith e a r lie ra n dla te rp r o n o u n c e m e n ts , a n da ll t h o s e fa c t o r s w h ic h g iv e itp o w e rto p e r s u a d e , if la c k i n gp o w e rto c o n t r o l.’” A v o n d a le In d s., In c. v. A la rio , 355 F. 3d 848, 851 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng Un i t ed St at e s v . Me ad Co r

p. , 533 U . S. 218, 228 ( 2001) ( quot i ng S ki d m ore v. S w if t& Co. , 3 2 3 U .S . 1 3 4 , 1 4 0 (19 4 4 ))) . DI S CU S S I ON A . S h if

t in gA t t o r n e y s ’ F e e s U n d e rth e L H W C A . S ect i on s 28 ( a)

- (b) , cod i f i ed as 3 3 U . S . C . §§ 928(a)

- (b) , provi de tw o bases f or a w a r d in ga tt o r n e y s ’fe e s u p o n s u c c e s s fu l p r o s e c u tio n o f aL H W C Acla im : (a ) A tt o r n e y ’ s fe e ; su c c e s s fu l p r o s e c u tio n o f c la im If t h e em pl oyer or carri er decl i n es t o payan y com pen sati on on or bef ore t h e t h i rt i et h da y af t er receivi n g w ri t t en n ot i ce of a cl ai m f

or com pen sati on ha vi n g been f i l ed f rom t h e dep u t y com m i ssi on er, on t he g r o und t hatt he r e is no l i ab i l i t y f o rc o m pe ns at i o n wi t hi n t he p r o v is io n s o f th is ch a p te ra n dth e p e r s o n s e e k in gb e n e fits s h a ll t he r e af t e rha ve ut i l i z e d t he s e r vi c e s o f a n a t t o r ne y atl aw i n t he s u c c e s s fu l p r o s e c u tio n o f h is cla im , th e r e s h a ll b e a w a r d e d , in a d d itio n to t h e a w a r do f c o m p e n s a tio n , in a co m p e n s a tio n o r d e r , a4

r eas onabl e a t t or ney’ s fee agai nst t he e m pl oye rorc ar r i eri n an a m o u n t . . . (b) A t t or ney’ s fee ; s ucc es sf ulpr os ec ut i on foraddi t i onal com p en sa ti on ; i n d ep en d en t m ed i ca le v a l u a ti on of d i sa b i l i ty con trov ersy ; restrict i on of oth er a sse ssm en ts If t h e em pl oyer or carri er pays or tend ers pa ym en tof com pen sati on w i t h ou tan aw ard p u rsuan tt o sec t i on 914 ( a) an d (b) of t h i s t i t l e, and t her eaf

t era co nt r ove r sydevel ops ov ert he am ountof addi t i onal c o m pe ns at i o n, i f

a ny, t o w hi c h t he e m pl o ye e m ayb e e nt i t l e d, t he deput y c om m i ss i onerorB oar d shal lsett he m at t erf oran i nf

or m al confer en ce and f

ol l ow i n g such conference t h e dep u t y com m i ssi on er o rBoa r d s hallr e c o m m e nd i n writ i ng a di spos i t i o n o f t he controver sy. I f

t h e em pl oyer or carri er r ef u ses t o ac c ept s u ch w ri t t en r e c o mme n d a t i o n , w i t h i n f o u r t e e n d a y s a f

t e ri t s r e c e i p tb yt h e m, t hey s hal lpay o rt endert o t he e m pl oye e in w r it i ng t he addi t i onal c o m pe ns at i o n, if

any, t o w hi c h t he y be l i e ve t he em pl o ye e i s e nt i t l e d. If t h e em pl oyee ref

u ses t o acceptsu ch p a y m en tor t en der of c om pensa t i on, and t her eaf t erut i l i ze s t he s ervi c es of an at t or ney at l aw, a nd if

t he c o m pe ns at i o n t he r e af t e ra w ar de d i s gr e at e rt han t he a m o u n t p a ido rte n d e r e db yt h e e m p lo y e ro rca r r ie r , are a s o n a b le at t o r ne y’ s fe e b as e d s o l e l y upo n t he di f fe r e nc e be t w e e n t he a m o unt a w a r d e da n dth e a m o u n t t e n d e r e d o rp a ids h a ll b e a w a r d e din ad di t i on t o t h e am ou n t of com pen sati on . T h e f oregoi n gse n ten ce sha l lnot app l y i f

t h e c o n tro v ersy r el ates t o degree or l en gth of di sabi l i t y . . . I f

t he c l ai m anti s suc c es sf uli n re vi ew pr oc ee di ngs be f o r e t he Boa r d o rc o ur ti n a ny s uc h c as e a n a w ar d m ayb e m ad e i n favor of

t h e cl ai m an tan d ag ai n stt h e em pl oyer or carri er f or a r e as o nab l e a t t o r ne y’ s fe e f o rc l ai m ant ' s c o uns e li n a c cor d wi t h t he a b o v e p r o v is io n s . In a ll o th e rc a s e s a n yc la im fo rle g a l s e r v ic e s s h a ll n otbe assess ed ag ai n stt h e em pl oyer or carri er. I n F M Cv. Perez , we c o n s t r u e dt h e s e pr o v i s i o n s a n dc o n c l u d e dt h a t“t h e L HW CA p r o v i d e s f

o r t h e a wa r d o f a t t o r n e y ’ s fe e s t o a n L HW CA c l a i ma nti n o nl yt wo c i r c um st ance s. ” 128 F. 3d 908, 909- 10 ( 5t h C i r . 1997) . W e s ai d, “ [u] nder[ 33 U . S. C. § 92 8( a) ] t he c l ai m ant i s e nt it l e d t o at t o r ne y’ s fe e s i f t h e em pl oyer
‘ d ecli n es to p a y a n y co m p en sa ti on . . . . ’” Id . ( q u o t i n g3 3 U. S . C. § 9 2 8 ( a ) ) . “An5

em pl oyee m ay be en t i t l ed to a tto rn e y ’ s f ees un der [ 33 U . S . C . § 928(b) ] if, af t er an i n f orm alcon ference, the em pl oyer rej ect s the recom m en da t i on s of the B oard o rc o m m i s s i o ne r ; t he em pl o ye rt e nde r s a n a m o unti n l i e u o f t he r e c o m m e nda t i o n; t he e m pl o ye e r ej e c t s t h ea m o u n tt e n d e r e db yth e e m pl o ye r ; t he e m p lo y e e h ir e s a n a tt o r n e y ; andt he e m pl oye e o bt ai ns an am ountgr eat ert han th e a m ou n t t en d ere d . ” Id . at909
- 91 ( e m pha s i s adde d) . 33 U. S. C. § 9 28 (b) t hus

“ gives an em pl oye ran oppo r t uni t y t o a vo i d th e p aym entof at t or ney’ s fee s by ei t her( 1) ac c ept i ng t he B oar d’ s orC om m i ss i oner ’ s r ec om m endat i ons or( 2) r e f us i ng t ho s e r e c o m m e nda t i o ns b utt e nde r i ng a pa y m e n tth a ti s a c c e pt e d b y t he cl a i m a n t. ” Id . a t 9 1 0 . 1. Aw ar di ng A t t or neys ’Fees und er 33 U . S. C . § 928 ( a) i s N otA ut hori ze d W e ha ve co n sis ten t l y constr u ed 33 U . S . C . § 928(a) t o i n corporat e a cond i t i on preceden t , na m el y t h at th e em pl oyer m u stcontes tl i abili t y bef ore s e c tio n 9 2 8 (a ) a u th o r iz e s fe e -s h iftin g . Se eD i r . , Of f i ceof W o r ke rs ’ Comp. Pr og r a m s , U.S . D e

p ’ t of L a b o rv . B la c k D ia m o n dCo a l Min ingCo ., 598 F. 2d 945, 9 5 3 ( 5 th C i r. 19 7 9 ) (“ [T ]he con d i ti on pr ece d en t [u n d er 3 3 U .S .C . s 92 8 (a)] to recover y of

att orneys’fees i s a c on t estof l i abili t y”) . I n ot h er w ords, w e aw ard a tt o r n e y s ’fe e s u n d e r s e c tio n 9 2 8 (a ) o n ly if th e e m p lo y e r b e lie v e s it is n o t lia b le f or anyco m p e n s a tio n o r“ n o co m p e n s a tio n is o w in g” r e g a r d le s s o f th e s p e c ific ty p e o f c o m p e n s a tio n re q u e s te d . Ay e rs S . S . Co . v . B r y a n t, 544 F . 2d 812, 813 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 97 7) . The r e f o r e , i f t he e m pl o ye radm i t s t o l i ab i l i t y f o rt he i nj ur y and te n d ers an yco m p e n sa tion , it i s n o t li a b le fo r a tto rn e y s’ fee s u n d e r s e ctio n 9 2 8 (a ). S ee S ava n n ah Mach . & S h i pya rd Co. v. D i r. , Of

f i ce of W orkers ’ Comp. Program s, 642 F . 2 d 887, 889 ( 5t h C i r . 1981) (“ Si nce t he [ em pl oye r] t ender ed par t i al com pen sati on , w e agree t h at [ 33 U . S . C . § 928 ( a) ] is inap pl i cabl e to t h e sit u ati on a t h a n d .”).6

As s t at e d p l ai nl y i n t he s t at ut e , t he r e l e va ntpe r i o d f o rdet e r m i ni ng i f

t he em pl oyer ha s t en dered som e com pen sati on i s t h e t h i rt y da ys af t er t h e f

i l i n g of t h e w ri t t en cl ai m . A ccor di n gl y, if t h e em pl oyer p ays som e p art i alcom pen sati on du ri n g t h ose t h i rt y da ys, t h ereby ad m i t t i n g t o lia b il ityf or t h e i nj u ry, sec t i on 9 2 8 (a ) d o e s n o t a p p ly . See, e . g. , Po o l Co . v . Co o p e r, 274 F . 3d 173, 186- 87 ( 5th C i r. 200 1) . M u rph y ad m i t s l i abili t y f or t h e i nj u ry an d pai d part i al com pen sati on f or t h e i nj u ry t h rough ou tt h e t h i rt y da ys. T h eref ore, sec t i on 92 8 ( a) does not a u th o r iz e fe e -s h iftin gin th is ca s e . S e eid . W e ha ve c o nt r as t e d sect i on 9 28 ( a) w i t h s e c t i o n 9 28 (b) i n Ayersa n ds a id t hats e c t i o n 9 28 (b) a ppli e s t o “ s i t uat i o n[ s ] w he r e t he e m pl o ye ra nd c l ai m ant agr ee t hats om e c om pensa t i on i s due bu tdi sa gr ee as t o w hatam ount . ” 544 F. 2d a t 8 1 3 ; s e ea ls o S a v a n n a h Ma c h ., 64 2 F. 2d at 88 9- 90 & n. 7 ( ap plyi n g sect i on 9 2 8 (b ) t o ac l a i ma n tw h o “ a c c e p t s p a r t i a lc o mp e n s a t i o n , b u tw h o c l a i ms ad di t i on alcom pen sati on . ” ) . H ere, t h e cl ai m an taccept ed p art i alcom pen sati on f orhi s i nj ury ( 26% par t i aldi sa bi l i t y be nef i t s) , butc l ai m s “ad d i t i onal com p en sa ti on , ” i . e. , t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s o r t h e r e ma i n i n g7 4 %, f o rt h e s a me i nj u ry. A ccor di n gl y, th is case i s properl y an al yzed u n der sect i on 928 (b) , not se ctio n 9 2 8 (a ). 2 . Aw ar di ng At t or ne ys ’F e e s under33 U . S. C. § 9 2 8 ( b) i s N otA ut hori ze d I n F M C, w e cl earl y constr u ed 33 U . S . C . § 928 (b) a s givi n g “ an em pl oyer an o ppo r t uni t y t o a vo i d t he pa ym e nto f a t t o r ne y’ s fe e s b y e i t he r( 1) a c c e pt i ng t he B oard’ s orC om m i ssi on er’ s r ecom m en da t i on s [ af t er an i n form alconference] or ( 2) r ef usi ng t hos e re c om m endat i ons bu tte nder i ng a paym entt hati s ac c ept ed by t he c l ai m ant . ” 1 28 F. 3da t9 10 . I n t hi s c as e , M u rph y ac c e pt e d t he recom m en da tion s t h at r esul t ed f rom th e i n f

orm alconference; un der FMC, M u r p h yth e r e b ya v o id s a n yo b lig a tio n to p a ya tt o r n e y s ’fe e s . Id . M ore ov er , in7

St af t exSt af f i ng v. D i r. , Of

f i ce of W orkers ’ Comp. Program s, 237 F . 3d 409, 410 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 0) , w e e m pha s i z e d t he fac tt hatt he e m pl o ye rd i d no ta c c e ptt he cl ai m s exam i n er’ s r ecom m en da t i on s, w h i ch f ol l ow ed the i n f

orm alconfe re n ce, a n du s e dth is fa c t a s are a s o n to a ffir m th e B R B ’ s a w a r do f a tt o r n e y s ’fe e s . S ee als o S t aft ex Staf

f i ng v. D i r. , Offi ce of

W orker’ s Comp. Program s, 237 F. 3d 404, 4 0 9 (5 th C ir .), o

pi ni o n m o dif

i e d o n re h’

g o n o t he rg r o unds , 237 F. 3d 409 ( 2000) ( “ Se c t i o n 9 28 (b) pe r m i t s c l ai m ant s t o ob t ai n at t o r ne y’ s fe e s only w he r e : ( 1) t he board ha s h el d an i n f orm al confer en ce on t h e di spu t ed i ssue; ( 2) t h e boardi ssues a w ri t t en recom m en da t i on on tha tis sue; an d ( 3) t h e em pl oyer r ef us e s t o ac c e

pt t h e rec om m en da t i o n. ” ) (e m pha s i s a dde d) . A r e qui rem en tt h at t h e em pl oyer m u st r e fu s e to a c c e p t th e re c o m m e n d a tio n s b e fo r e a tt o r n e y s ’fe e s ca n b e a w a r d e dis fo u n din th e p la in s ta tu to r yte x t: If t h e em pl oyer or carri er refu seto a cc ep t such w ri t t en r e c o mme n d a t i o n , w i t h i n f o u r t e e n d a y s a f

t e ri t s r e c e i p tb yt h e m, t hey s hal lpay o rt endert o t he e m pl oy ee i n w r it i ng t he addi t i onal c o m pe ns at i o n, i f

a ny, t o w hi c h t he y be l i e ve t he e m pl o ye e i s e nt i t l e d. If t h e em pl oyee ref

u ses t o a cc e p t s u ch pa ym en tor t en der of c om pensa t i on, and t her eaf t er ut i l i ze s t he se r vi c es of an at t or ney at l aw, and i f

t he c o m pe ns at i o n t he r e af t e ra w ar de d i s g r e at e rt han t he a m o u n t p a ido rte n d e r e db yth e e m p lo y e ro rca r r ie r , are a s o n a b le at t o r ne y’ s fe e ba s e d s o l e l y upo n t he dif fe r e nc e b e t w e e n t he a m o unt a w a r d e da n dth e a m o u n t t e n d e r e do rp a ids h a ll b e a w a r d e din ad di t i on t o t h e am ou n tof com pen sati on 3 3 U .S .C . 9 2 8 (b ) (e m p h a s is a d d e d). I n Jam es J. Flan ag an S t evedores , Inc. v. G allag h er, w e ac kno w l e dg e d, b ut de c l i ne d t o a ddr e s s , c o n t rary N i nt h Ci r c ui ta ut ho r i t y t hatw o ul d p e r m i tt he awa r d o f a t t o r n e y s ’ fe e s wh e t h e r o r n o t t h e e m p l o y e r a c c e p t e d o r r ej e c t e d t he recom m en da t i on s f

rom t h e i n f

orm alconference. 219 F . 3d 426 , 435 n. 18 ( 5th C i r. 2000) (c i t i ng Nat’

lS t eel& S h i

pb u i l d i ng Co. v. U. S . D ep’ tof L ab or , 606 F. 2d 875,8

8 8 2 (9 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ); Ma t u l i cv . Di r . , Of f i c eof Wo r k e rs Co mp . Pr og r a ms , 154 F. 3d 1052, 1061 ( 9t h C i r . 1998) ) . Th e N i nt h C i r c ui tac know l edge s t hats ec t i on 928(b) pl ai nl y r equi r es t he e m pl oye rt o have r ej ec t ed t he r ec om m endat i on be f or e a n a w a r do f a tt o r n e y s ’fe e s ca n b e g r a n te d . S ee T od dS h i pya rds Corp. v. D i r. , Of f i ce of W o r k e rs Co mp . Pr og r a m s , 950 F. 2d 607, 611 ( 9t h C i r . 1991) (“C on gres s has de t e r m i ne d, ho w e ve r , t hatif a n e m pl o ye rpa ys t he b e ne f i t s c l ai m e d b y t he em pl oyee, t h e em pl oyer w i l lnot be r espo n sibl e f or t h e pay m en tof

att orneys’ fe e s , u n l e s s t h e e mp l o y e rr ej e c t s t h e w r i t t e n r e c o mme n d a t i o n o f t h e c l a i ms exam i nerfoll ow i ng t he i nf or m alhear i ng and t he e m pl oye e o bt ai ns addit i onal be ne f i t s a taf o r m alhe ar i ng be f

o r e t he D e pa r t m e nto f Lab o r . ” ) . H o w e ve r , i n Na t’l S te e l & S h ip b u ild ingCo ., t he N i nt h C i r c ui tl oo ked be yond th e pl ai n l anguage an d concl u ded t h at “congressi on ali n t en tw as to lim i tl i abili t y [f or at t orneys’ fee s] t o c as es i n w hi c h t he p a rt i es di sput ed t he e xi st enc e o rex t entof l i abi l i t y, w het herorn ott he e m pl oye rhad ac t ual l y r ej ec t ed an adm i ni st r at ive r e c o m m e n d a tio n .” 6 0 6 F .2 da t 8 8 2 ; s e ea ls o Ma tu lic , 15 4 F. 3da t1 06 0- 61 (r e l yi ng on the statu tory“i n ten t” to j u s tify t h e ru l e th a t “th e claim a n t i s en ti tl ed to at t o r ne y’ s fe e s w he r e t he e xt e nto f l i ab i l i t y i s c o nt r o ve r t e d a nd t he c l ai m ant suc c es sf ul l y o bt ai ns i ncr eas ed co m pensa t i on, ‘ w het heror nott he e m pl oye rhad ac t ual l y r ej ec t ed an adm i n i strative r ec om m endat i on. ’” ) ( quot i ng Na t’l S tee l & S h i pb u i l d i ng Co. , 6 0 6 F .2 da t 8 8 2 ). I n Ho ll i d ayv . T

o d dS h ipy a r d s Co r

p ., 6 5 4 F .2d 4 1 5 , 4 1 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 1 ), ov e r r ule d on ot hergrounds by Ph illip s v . Ma r in eCo n c r e teS tr u c tu r e s , In c ., 895 F . 2d 103 3, 103 5 ( 5th C i r. 1 990 ) , w e noted t h at “ [ s] ect i on 28 does n otprovi de f or at t o r ne ys ’fe e a w ar ds i n e ve r y c as e i n whi c h t he c l ai m anti s s uc c e s s f ul . ” As t he N in th C ir c u it a c k n o w le d g e s , t h e s ta tu te h e r e lite r a llyb a r s fe e -s h iftin gfo rth is fac tu a lsi tu a ti on . T h ere fore, a litera lrea d i n g o f th e sta tu te su bj ects clai m a n ts9

l i ke An dre pontt o the pr es um pt ive and gener al l y appl i c abl e Am er i c an R ul e t hat b a r s fe e - s h i f

t i n g . Un d e rt h e Ame r i c a n Ru l e , afe e - s h i f ti s a l l o w e d o n ly if t h ere is s o m e “s p e c ific a n de x p lic it” s ta tu to r ye x c e p tio n . Se ei d. a t4 19
- 20 ( quo t i ng A lye sk a P ip elin e Ser v . Co . v . Wild er n es s S o c ’y , 4 2 1 U .S . 2 4 0 , 2 6 0 (19 7 5 )). B ecau se t h e st atute does not l i t eral l y provi de f or f ee- sh ifti n g w h en em pl oyers ac c e ptt he BR B’ s rec o m m e nda t i o n a f t e ra n i nf

o r m alc o nfe r e nc e , t he r e i s no
“ s pe c i f i c a nd e xp l i c i t” s t at ut o r y e xc e pt i o n t hatw ar r an t s ade pa r t ur e f r o m t he g e n e r a llya p p lic a b le a n dp r e s u m p tiv e A m e r ic a n R u le . S e eid . In agreem en t w i t h t h i s posi t i on , t h e S i xth an d F ou rt h C i rcui t s hav e al so r ej e c t e d t he N i nt h Ci r c ui t ’ s “l e gi s l a t iv ein t e n t”a p p r o a c h, s pe c i f i c all y r e fe r e nc i ng o urde c i s i o ns i n St af t exSt af f i nga nd FMC an d concl u di n g th a t o n e of sect i on 928 (b) ’ s expl i ci tprerequis i t es f or an att orneys’f

ees aw ard i s that the em pl oyer m u stre ject th e re c o m m e n d a tio n s th a t e m e r g e f r o m th e in fo r m a l co n fe r e n c e . S ee, e . g. , Pi t t s bur

gh & Conne autD o c k Co. v . D i r . , Of f i c eof W o r ke rs ’ Comp. Pr ogram s , 473 F . 3d 2 53 , 2 65-66 ( 6th C i r. 200 7) (“ T h e F i f t h C i rcui tha s c on si st en t l y requ i red t h a tea c h of

t he r equir em ent s se tf or t h i n subs ec t i on (b) be m etbe f or e a n e m p lo y e rin c u r s lia b ilityfo ra tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s .”); V a. I nt ’lTer m i nals , I

nc. v. E d w ard s, 3 98 F. 3d3 13 , 3 18 ( 4t h Ci r . 20 05 ) ( “ [ S] e c t i o n 92 8(b) r e quir e s all o f t he f o l l o w i ng: ( 1) a n i nf

o r m alc o nfe r e nc e , ( 2) aw r i t t e n r e c o m m e nda t i o n f r o m t he dep u t y or B oard, ( 3) t h e em pl oyer’ s r ef u salt o adop tt h e w ri t t en reco m m en d a ti on , an d( 4 ) th e em p l oy ee ’ s p rocu ri n g o f th e se rv i ces o f a l a w ye r to ac hi e ve ag r e at e ra w ar d t han w hatt he e m pl o ye rw as w i l l i ng t o p ay af t e rt he w r itt e n re c o m m e n d a tio n .”). W e a r e r e quir e d t o c o ns t r ue t he pl ai n m e ani n g of the s t at ut e , a nd the pl ai n l ang uag e of

Sec t i o n 28(b) re quir e s t hatan em pl o ye rm us tre f us e t o a c c e ptJudg e Garwood do es not j oinour subsequent statements inthis paragraphan d the 1 following

paragraph . 10 th e inform a lreco m m en d a ti on be fore a ttorn ey s’fee s ar e sh i ft ed . W e n ote 1 par ent het i c al l y t hatr equi r i ng t hi s el em entm i ghts ee m odd w hen t he i nf or m al r ec om m endat i on w as c om pl et ely favor abl e t o t h e em pl oye r . I ti s uncl earw hat an e m pl o ye rc o ul d do t o r e f us e t o ac c e pt a fav o r ab l e r e c o m m e nda t i o n. U nde ro ur r e s u l t , t h e r e f

o r e , ac l a i ma n twh o l o s e s a t t h e i n f o r ma lc o n fe r e n c e h a s o n l yt wo o pt i o ns : a c c e ptt he r e s u l t , or s e e k g r e at e rc o m pe ns at i o n b e f o r e t he ALJ and suff er a r edu ct i on i n hi s orher ben ef i t s ba sed on t h e cos tof hi ri n g an att orney t o p u r s u e th e c la im . T h u s , t h e p r a c t ic a l e ffe c th e r e i s t o c u tin t o A n d r e p o n t ’s r e c o v e r y , w h i c h s e e m s to b e a d v e r s e to th e p u r p o s e o f th e s ta tu te . S eeO ilf ield S afe ty & Mach . S

peci alt i es, I

n c. v. Harm an Un l i m i t ed, I n c. , 625 F. 2d 1248, 1257 ( 5th C i r. 198 0) (n ot i n g t h at th e fee- shi f t i n g provi si on “ en sures tha ta n em pl oyee w i l lno tha ve t o r e ac h i nt o t he s t at ut o r y be ne f i t s t o pa y f

o rl e ga ls e r vi c e s , t hus d im in is h in gth e u ltim a te re c o v e r y”). A s th e d is s e n tin gA d m in is tr a tiv e A p p e a ls Ju dg e w r o t e , “ The l i t e r alc o ns t r uc t i o n o f Se c t i o n 2 8(b) r uns c o unt e rt o t he pur po s e o f

t he Ac t ’ s fe e - s hi f

t i ng pr o vi s i on s i n case s , s uc h a s t hi s , w he r e t he c l ai m anto bt ai ns g r e at e rc o m pe ns at i o n b y vir t ue o f t he p ro c e e di ngs b e f o r e t he a d m i n i strative law j u d ge . ” Cf . P i t t sbu rgh & Con n eau tD ock Co. , 473 F. 3d at272 (M o o r e , J . , c o nc ur r i ng i n pa r ta nd d i s s e nt i ng i n pa r t) (“ T h e stat ut e m e nt i o ns t h ese f orm al i t i es, b u titd oes n otstat e tha ttheya re prec on di t i on s t o an aw ard unde r§ 928 (b) . T he r e f o r e , t he pl ai n l ang uag e of t he s t at ut e do e s no ta ddr e s s t he s i t uat i o n, w he n, a s he r e , t he f o rm al i t i es w e r e l ac ki ng t hr o ughno faulto f t he c la im a n t . . . . ”). I f we c o ul d e l e v a t e t he p ur p o s e s o f t he s t a t ut e a b o v e t he p l ai n t ext r e ad i ng, w e m i ghtb e m o r e s ym pa t he t i c t o A ndr e po nt ’ s ar gum e nti n t hi s r e ga r d.11

H o w e v e r , th e s ta tu te d o e s n o t s p e c ific a llyo re x p lic itlym a n d a te fe e -s h iftin gin t hi s sit uat i on, i nst ead i trequi r es t he e m pl oye rt o “r ef use t o a c c ept” t he i nf or m al r ec om m endat i on be f or e s hi f t i ng t he bur den of

c l ai m ant ’ s at t or neys ’fee s. I tm ay be that C on gress d id not i n t en d to precl u de the aw ard of att orneys’fees based o n t he l ac k o f

t he e m pl o ye r r e f

us i ng t o a c c e ptaf

ul l y fav o r ab l e r e c o m m e nda t i o n. Butb as e d o n t he pl ai n t e xt o f Se c t i o n 92 8(b)

— w hi c h i nc l ude s r e f us i ng t o a c c e pt as a n e l e m e nt

— fe e - s hi f t i ng i s unav ail ab l e he r e , no t w i t hs t and i ng t hi s s e e m i ng a n om a l y. A n d rep on t’ s p oli cyarg u m en ts are the refore be st ad d ress ed to C on gress, not t h e court s.
“ I n as t at ut o r y c o ns t r uc t i o n c as e , t he b e gi nni ng po i ntm us tb e t he l ang uag e o f

t he st atute, a nd when a s t at ut e s pe ak s w i t h c l ar i t y t o a n i s s ue j u d iciali n qu i ry i n t o t h e st atute’ s m ean i n g, i n al lbu tt h e m ostext raordi n ary ci rcu m stan ce, i s f

i n i sh ed . ” Es ta teof Co w a r t v . Nic k lo s D r illingCo ., 505 U . S. 469, 475 ( 199 2) . A ccor di n gl y, i n l i n e w i t h pri or prec ede n tan d the pl ai n st atutor y l an gu age, an aw ard of att orneys’ fees u n der sect i on 928 (b) requi res t h e em pl oyer t o have r ef

use d t o a c c eptt he r ec om m endat i ons t hatem er ge f r om t he i nf

or m al confer en ce. B ecau se M u rph y accepted t h e rec om m en da t i on s, sec t i on 928 (b) does n o t a u th o r iz e a n a w a r din th is ca s e . The BR B w as c o r r e c t i n de nyi ng an awar d o f a t t o r ne ys ’fe e s und e rs e c t i o ns 9 2 8 ( a ) a n d9 2 8 (b ) . W e n o w D ENYt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.