Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d 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- 31164

ROBERT HARVEY P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. L OUI S I ANAI NS URA NCE GUA RA NT EE A S S OC I AT I ON D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 08- c v- 00459

B ef ore K IN G , G A R W O O D , an d D AV IS, C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * The Loui s i anaI ns ur anc e G uar ant y Ass o c i at i o n ( “ LI G A” ) a ppe al s t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de rgr ant i ng s um m ar y j udg m e nta ga i ns ti ti n a n e nf o r c e m e nt
a c tio n . B e c a u s e th e s u p p le m e n ta l d e fa u lt o r d e rfile dw ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is “in a c c o r d a n c e w ith la w ,” w e a ffir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I. R obertH arvey w as an em pl oyee of B a to n R ou ge M ari n e C on t ract ors ( “ BRM C” ) f

r o m 1 9 6 5

- 1 9 7 7 , d u r i n gwh i c h t i m e h e wa s e x p o s e dt o a s b e s t o s . An United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 4, 20 09 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31164

2 ad m i ni s t r at ive l aw j udg e ( “AL J” ) de t e r m i ne d t hatund e rt he Lo ngs ho r e m e n a nd H arborW or ker s’C om pensa t i on A c t ( “ LH W C A” ) , B R M C and L I G A , w hi c h w as in th e ro le o f B R M C ’ s in s u r e r , w e r e lia b le fo rH a r v e y ’ s cla im s re la te dto t h is
ex p osu re. B R M C ’ s l i a b i l i ty i n su rer at th e t i m e of H a rv ey ’ s e m p l oy m en t, E m pl oyer’ s N ati on alI n suran ce C orporati on ( “ E m pl oyer’ s” ) , ha d been decl ared i ns o lve nt , a nd t he ALJ de t e r m i ne d t hatLI G A st e ppe d i nt o Em p l o y e r ’ s s ho e s a nd t ook on E m pl oyer’ s obl i gati on s. LIG Aw as cr eated by the L ou i si an a l egi sl ature to p a y claim s ag a i n s t in su ra n ce co m p a n i es th a t ha ve be en de cl a red i n solve n t. N ei t h er LIG Anor B R M C pa i d H arvey’ s cl ai m s, an d H arvey f i l ed a r equ est f o r a s upp l e m e nt al o r de r t o be i s s ue d unde r s e c t i o n 18 o f t he LH W CA

. U n der § 9 18 ( a) , a n i ndivi dua lm ayr e c e ive a s upp l e m e nt alo r de r o f de faul ti f pa ym e nt
u n d e ra n a wa r d o f

c o m p e n s a t i o n i s n o tmad e wi t h i n t h i r t yd a y s . 3 3 U. S

. C. A. § 91 8( a)

. The D i s t r i c tD i r e c t o ri s s ue d a Suppl e m e nt alD e faul tO r de r , r e qui r i ng L IG Ato pa y th e claim a m ou n t. T h e ord er also a d d ed a tw en ty p erce n t pe n a l ty f orLIG A ’ s fai l ure t o t i m el y pay, and dec l ar ed bo t h t he penal t y and t he o r i gi nal
c l ai m a m o unti n de faul t
. H arve y f i l e d t he c ur r e ntact i on to e nf o r c e t he S u p p l em en tal D efau l t O rd er. L IG A th en fil ed T h i rd -P a rty D em a n d s ag a i n st a
n u m be r o f i ns ur e r s w ho i s s ue d l i ab i l i t y po l i c i e s t o BR M C f o r ye ar s o t he r t h en
w he n H arve y w as e m pl o ye d. Bot h H arve y andBR M C m o ve d f o rs um m ar y j u dg m en t , w h i ch t h e d i st ri ctcou rtg ran t ed, a n d t h e di st ri ctcourtal so di sm i ssed t he Thi r d- Par t y D e m and s f o r l ac k o f s ubj e c t m at t e rj ur i s di c t i o n. LI G A so ugh t a st ay of t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s j u dg m en t , w h i ch w as gran t ed bythis cou rt , an d n ow
a p p ea l s th e g ra n t of

su m m a ryj u d gm en t.

II T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h a ll “ e n te rju d g m e n t fo rt h e a m o u n t d e c la r e din d e fa u lt b y th e su p p l em en tary ord er i f su ch su p p l em en taryord er is i n acco rd a n ce w i th l a w . ” § 9 1 8 (a). W e rev i ew a g ra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo , a pplyi ng t he
s a m e s ta n d a r d s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Hayw ardv. U

. S

. D ep’ tof L ab or , 536 F. 3dN o. 08- 31164

Sect i o n 918(a) provid esthe pro ceduresthat areto be foll ow ed in obt aining a 1 supple mental order: (a) In case of default by the employer in the payment of co mpensationdu e under any award of co mpensationfo raperiod of thirtydays after the co mpensationis due and payable, the p ersonto whom such compen satio n is payablemay , within oneyear after such default, make ap plicationto the deputycommissionermaking thecompe nsation order or as up p le mentary order declarin g the amount of the default. After inves tigation, notice , an d h earing , as provided in sectio n 919of this title , the deputy commissioner sh allmake a supplementary order, declarin g the amount of the default, whichshall be file d inthe sa me manner as the co mpensationorder. 3 376 , 379 (5t h C i r. 2 008 )

. T h eref ore, w e revi ew t h e Su pp l em en t alD efau l tO rder t o d e t e r mi n e i f

i ti s i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h l a w. I n A b b o ttv . L o u is ia n aI n s u r a n c eG u a r a n ty A s s ’n , 889 F

. 2d 6 26 ( 5th C i r. 1989) , t hi s c our t exam i ned t he st andards f or det er m i ni ng i f a suppl em ent al ord er issu ed u n d er § 9 1 8 (a) i s i n acco rd a n ce w i th l a w . T h e r e , w e sa i d “a sup pl em en t alorder of defaul t i s ‘ i n accordan ce w i t h l aw ’ as requ i red by sect i on 18 ( a) [ o f

t he LH W CA ] i f

t he D e put y Com m i s s i o ner h as cor r e c t l y f o l l o w e d t he procedu res ou t l i n ed”i n t h at s ect i on . “ T h e D epu t y C om m i ssi on er m u st 1 i n vest i gate t h e cl ai m an t ’ s ap pl i cat i on , p rovi de n ot i ce of t h e cl ai m t o i n t erest ed pa rt i es, an d gi ve t h e parti es an op portun i t y for a hea ri n g i n t h e m an n er sp ecif i ed i n secti on 19 of th e [L H W C A ]. ” A b b o tt , 88 9 F. 2d at 62 9. The a m o unt
o f t he a w ar d m us tb e c al c ul at e d, a nd t he s upp l e m e nt alo r de rm us tbe f i l e d i n t he
sam e m an n er as a com pen sati on order, an d t h e D epu t y C om m i ssi on e r m u st
n o tify th e re s p o n s ib le p a r tie s . § 9 1 8 (a ); A b b o tt , 8 8 9 F .2 da t 6 2 9
. H ere, L IG Apresents n o argu m en tt h at t h e S u pp l em en t al D efau l tO rder i s no ti n a c c o r da nc e w i t h l aw unde rt he s e c r i t e r i a. LI G A do e s no ta l l e ge t hatt he
c om m i ss i onerfai l ed t o i nves t i gat e H a rv ey’ s c l ai m , ort hati tdi d notr ec eive
no t i c e . The und i s put e d fac t s e s t ab l i s h t hata l lne c e s s ar y s t e ps w e r e t ak e n. The pa rt i es r eceived noti ce of t h e cl ai m , an d w ere al lrepre sented at a c on ference bef or e t he A LJ.N o. 08- 31164

4 I n s t e a d , L I GA a r g u e s t h a t t h e i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n i e s wh i c h c o v e r e dBRM C f or years ot h er t h a n w h e n H arvey w as em pl oyed shou l d be h el d l i able. Th ese i ns ur anc e c o m pa n i es a ppe ar e d o n b e hal f o f t he m s e lve s a nd BRM C att he h eari n gb e fore t h e A L J w i t h ou tan y “ reservati on of ri gh t s” t o den y coverage. LI G A a r gue s t hat t he s e i ns ur anc e c o m pa ni e s hav e t he r e f o r e w ai ved a ny
c ove r age def

ens e a vai l abl e t o t hem ; t hus t hey have c ove r age a n d m u st pay H arvey’ s c l a im s. U n der t h e st atute c reat i n g L IG A , i n di vi du al s m u stexh au st t h ei r c l ai m s agai n st a llot h er avai l able i n suran ce bef ore proc eedi n g aga i n st L IG A

. L A
. R EV
. S TAT
. A NN
. § 2 2 :20 6 2 (A ) ( 2005)

. I tf ol l ow s, ac c or di ng t o LI G A , t hat H arvey m u st pu rsue h i s c l ai m s agai n stt h ese ot h er i n suran ce c om pa n i es bef ore H a r v e yc a n c o ll e c tfr o m L I G A . L I G Aa ls o a r g u e s th a tt h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s di sm i ssalof

i t s Th i rd- P art y D em an ds aga i n stthe ot h er i n suran ce c om pa n i es f or l ack of subj ectm att er j u ri sdi ct i on w as i m proper. D e s pi t e LI G A ’ s ar gum e nt s , t hi s c o ur t ’ s r e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o w he t he rt he S u p p le m e n ta l D e fa u lt O r d e ris in a c c o r d a n c e w ith la w . Itis n o t w ith in th is
c o ur t ’ s purvi e w t o de t e r m i ne “ t he pr o c e dur alo rs ubs t ant ive c o r r e c t ne s s o f t he
u n d erlyingcom p en sa ti on ord ers.” A b b o tt , 8 89 F. 2dat630
. Ther e f o r e , t he g r ant of sum m ary j u dg m en tan d the di sm i ssalof L IG A ’ s Th i rd- P art y D em an ds w ere p rop er. R ev i ew of th e su b stan tive corre ctn ess of a n ord er is lef t to th e B en efi ts R e v ie w B o a r d (“B R B ”), a n d L IG A ’ s a p p e a l to th a t b o d yis cu r r e n tlyp e n d in g . S ee Jou rda n v. E qu i t ab le E qu i p. Co. , 8 89 F. 2d6 37 , 6 40 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 9) ( “ The i s s ue
o f w hi c h c a r r i e r i s u l t i m a t e l y l i a b l e . . . s h o u l d h a v e b e e n r a i s e d i n t he pr o c e e di ngs b e f

o r e t he ALJ anda ppe al e d t o the B R B a f t e rt he ALJ i s s ue d t he Com pe ns at i on O rder

. ” )

. I n i t s a ppe alb e f o r e t he BR B, LI G A i s pr e s e nt i ng t he
s a m e a r g u m e n t s itp r e s e n t s h e r e . A ft e rt h e B R B r e v ie w s t h e m e r it s o f L I G A ’s cl ai m s and i ssues i t s or der, L IG Acan then app ealt h at or der t o t h i s court u n der t he pr o vi s i o ns o f

3 3 U

. S. C. § 9 21 (c ) , a tw hi c h t hi s t i m e t he c o ur t c an de t e r m i neN o. 08- 31164

5 if th e A L J ’ s d e c is io n w a s s u p p o r te db ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . S ee L a. I n s. G u ar. A ss ’ n v. A b b o tt , 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 2 , 1 2 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). LIG Aal so ar gues t hatenf or c i ng t he j udgm entagai nsti tw hi l e i t s appeal be f o r e t he BR B i s pe ndi ng vi o l at e s i t s due pr o c e s s r i ght s . U nde r§ 9 21 (b) ( 3) , t he B R B ca n is s u e a s ta ya s to th e p a y m e n t o f a n a w a r da m o u n t if “ir r e p a r a b le i nj ury” c an be dem ons t r at ed by t he payor . LI G Adi d notf i l e am ot i on f

ors t ay,
an d argu es t h at t h e i rrepa ra b le i nj u ry st an da rd i s i m possibl y h i gh

. H ow ever, a hi gh s t andard do es m a ke r ec eivi ng a s t ay i m pos sibl e. The “ c om pre hensive sy stem of rev i ew ” pro vid ed f or b y t h e L H W C A , w h i ch “i n cl u d [es] th e op p ortu n i ty to p e tit io n fo ra s ta y” p r o te c ts a p a y o r ’ s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts
. A b b o tt , 889 F. 2d at 632. III. W e t h e r e fo r e co n c lu d e th a t t h e S u p p le m e n ta l D e fa u lt O r d e ris “in
ac c o r da nc e w i t h l aw” a nd t hats um m ar y j u dg m e ntw as a ppr o pr i at e . The d i sm i ssa lof th e T h i rd -P a rty C l a i m s w a s p rop er, a n d L IG A ’ s ar gu m en t t h a t i ts d u e p roce ss righ ts are be i n g v i olated i s w i th ou t m erit. T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED a n dt h e s t a y i s L I F T ED

.