[PUBLIS H]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 03 3

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 3 :0 9- cv -0 02 40 -HES-J RK
BERNARD D. BOROSKI,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt ,

ve rs us DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, INSURANCE COM PANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA/AIG W ORLDSOURCE, DIRECTOR, OFFIC E OF W ORKERS' COM PENSATION PROGRAM S, UNITED STAT ES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 3 0, 2 01 2)
ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STA TES SUPREME COURT Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 1 of 18Befo re PR YOR an d EDMONDSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and HOPKINS, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e. HOPKINS, Dis tri ct Ju dg e:
Th i s c as e is on rem an d fro m th e Su pr em e Co ur t fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n i n
li gh t of Rob er ts v. Se a- La nd Se rv ic es , In c. ,

__ _ U.S.

_ _ _, 13 2 S. Ct

. 13 50 (2 01 2)

. The Rob er ts de ci si on co nc lu si ve ly an swe rs on e is su e in th is ap pe al , an d th e Rob er ts

op in io n of

fers so m e gu id an ce to an swe r th e ot he r is su e. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e
di st ric t co ur t.
I. BACKGRO UND
A. The I ni tia l Pa nel Deci si on in th is Appea l
The fact s an d pr oc ed ur al hi st or y of th i s a p p e a l are se t fo rth in ou r earl ie r
op in io n, Bor os ki v. Dyn Co rp In te rn at io na l , 66 2 F.3 d 11 9 7, 11 98 –1 20 0 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 11 ) (h erei na fte r

Bor os ki I ). W e n eed no t re co un t t he m he re.
Add it io na ll y , we ne ed no t d i s c u ss at le ng th th e st at ut or y fram ewo rk at is su e
he re. W e earl ie r de sc rib ed th e co nt en t an d st ru ct ur e of th e Lon gs ho re a n d H a rb or
W or ke rs ’ Co m

pe ns at io n Act (th e “ Act” ), 33 U.S.C. §§ 90 1– 95 0 (2 00 6) , as ex te nd ed by th e Defen se Bas e A c t, 42 U.S.C.§§ 16 51 –5 5 (2 00 6)

. Se e Bor os ki , 66 2 F.3 d at
12 00 –0 2. And , th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s op in io n in Rob er ts al so ex pl ai ns th e Act’s

Honora ble Virg inia Emerson Hopkins, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern * District of Alaba

ma, sitting by

desig nation.
2 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 2 of 18op erat io n. Se e Rob er ts , 13 2 S. Ct

. at 13 54 –5 5. The refo re, we de sc rib e th e Act on ly

br ie fly.
The Act pr ov id es di sa bi li ty be ne fit s to co ve red em pl oyees, an d se ts m ax im

um

an d m in im

um be ne fit pa y m en ts

. S e e 33 U.S.C. § 90 6( b)

. The am ou nt of th es e
pa y m en ts are d et erm in ed in refe ren ce t o t he na ti on al av erag e week ly w ag e. Se e id

. The na ti on al av erag e week ly wag e is cal cu la te d aft er Ju ne 1 of each y ear, an d ap pl ie s

to th e pe rio d fro m Octo be r 1 of th at y ear to Sep t e m be r 30 of th e ne xt y ear. Se e 33
U.S.C. § 90 6( b) (3 ). Sect io n 90 6( c) pr ov id es th at de te rm in at io ns of th e na ti on al

av erag e week ly w ag e:

. . . sh al l ap pl y to em pl oyees or su rv iv or s cu rren tl y rece i vi ng c o mp en sa ti on fo r pe rm an en t to ta l di sa bi li ty or de at h be ne fit s du r i n g su ch pe rio d, as well as th os e ne wly award ed co m pe ns at io n du rin g su ch pe rio d.
3 3 U.S.C. § 90 6( c) (2 00 6)

. Thu s, th e am ou nt of a di sa bl ed em pl oyee’s be n e f

i t

pa y m en t de pe nd s on whi ch y ear’s na ti on al av erag e week ly wag e is us ed to cal cu la te
th at pa y m en t.
Add it io na ll y , fo r cert ai n d i s a b l ed em pl oyees, th e Act pr ov id es fo r an nu al
in crea se s in th ei r be ne fit pa y m en t am ou nt s. Se e 33 U.S.C. § 91 0 ( f )

. Fo r ex am

pl e,
Sect io n 91 0( f) pr ov id es th at pe rs on s who are pe rm an en tl y an d to ta ll y di sa bl ed sh al l

rece iv e a y earl y in crea se in rel at io n to th e in crea se in th e na ti on al av erag e week ly

3 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 3 of 18wag e. Id

. Thi s s ect io n c ap s an y in crea se at f

iv e p erce nt

. Id

. In hi s in it ia l br ie f, Bo ro sk i m ad e two arg um en ts

. Fi rs t, he co nt en de d th at th e ph ras e “ ne wly award ed co m pe ns at io n ” m ean s th e act ua l en try of a co m pe ns at io n
award

. Se e App el la nt ’s Br. at 15

. Bec au se Bo ro sk i’s co m pe ns at io n award was

en te re d in 20 08 (s ix y ears aft er he be cam e di sa bl ed ), he co nt en de d th at th e 20 08

na ti on al av erag e week ly wag e sh ou ld de te r mi n e t h e si ze of hi s di sa bi li ty be ne fit

pa y m en ts fo r each y ear fro m 20 02 to 20 08

. Seco nd , Bo ro sk i co nt en de d th at a co ur t

wou ld reac h th e sa m e res ul t u n d e r th e “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g co m pe ns at io n” cl au se
. Bo ro sk i arg ue d th at “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g co m pe ns at io n” m ean s th e ti m e t he

co m pe ns at io n is act ua ll y rece iv ed

. Bo ro sk i di d no t rece iv e an y pa y m en ts un ti l 20 08

. Thu s, h e cl ai m ed th at th e 2 00 8 nat io na l aver ag e week ly wag e sh ou ld de te rm in e th e
si ze o f hi s b en efi t p ay m en ts un de r ei th er cl au se
. In Bor os ki I

, we ag reed wit h Bo ro sk i’s fir st arg um en t. W e fo ll owe d th e Fi fth
Ci rcu it ’s de ci si on in W

il ker so n v. Ing al ls Sh ip bu il di ng , Inc

. , 12 5 F .3d 90 4 (5 th Ci r.
19 97 ), an d he ld th at “ ne wly award ed co m pe ns at io n” m ean s th e fo rma l e n t r y o f a

co m pe ns at io n or de r. Se e Bor os ki , 66 2 F.3 d at 12 0 8 , 1 2 1 4

– 1 5

. W e no te d th at th e
N i n th Ci rcu it reac he d a di ffer en t co nc lu si on in Rob er ts v. Dir ect or , Off ic e of

W or ker s’ Co mpe ns at io n Pro gr ams , 62 5 F.3 d 12 04 , 12 08 (9 th Ci r. 2010 ) (h ol di ng th at

“ ne wly awa r de d co m

pe ns at io n” m ean s “ ne wly en ti tl ed to co m pe ns at io n” ), bu t we

4 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 4 of 18reject ed th ei r po si ti on
. Se e Bor os ki , 66 2 F .3d at 1 21 1– 12

.

Our de ci si on in Bor o s k i I d id no t ad dr es s Bo ro sk i’s se co nd arg um en t,

co nc ern in g t he “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g c om

pe ns at io n” cla us e.
B. The Supr eme Cou rt’s Deci si on in Ro be rt s v. Sea -Lan d Ser vi ces , In c.
Afte r we ha nd ed do wn ou r op in io n in Bor os ki I ,bu t be fo re th e m an da te is su ed , Defen da nt s m ov ed to st ay
. The y ex pl ai ne d th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t h a d r e c e nt ly

gr an te d cert io rari in Rob er ts to ad dr es s th e “ ne wly award ed ” cl au se
. W e ag reed , an d

st ay ed ou r m an da te in Bor os ki I pe nd in g th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on of Rob er ts

. Se e Ord er St ay in g Man da te , Bor os ki v. Dyn Co rp In t’l , No. 11 -1 00 33 (1 1t h Ci r. Dec.
14 , 20 11 ). Defen da nt s t he n fi le d t he ir o wn p et it io n fo r cer ti or ari

. In Rob er ts , th e Su pr em e Co ur t ag reed wit h th e Nin th Ci rc u i t , a n d he ld th at

“ ne wly award ed co m

pe ns at io n” in § 9 06 (c) m ean s ne wly en ti tl ed to co m pe ns at io n.
The Co ur t fir st de te rm in ed th at th e ph ras e “ ne wly award ed co m pe ns at io n” is

a mb ig uo us whe n vi ewed in is ol at io n. The Co ur t ack no wled ge d th at th e pl ai n t i f f ’s (an d Bor os ki ’s) co nt en ti on —i .e., “ award ” m ean s a fo rm al co m pe ns at io n award

—i s

“ ap pe al in g.” Rob er ts , 13 2 S. Ct

. at 13 56

. Bu t, th e Co ur t al so no te d th at “ award ” can

m ean “ gr an t” or “ co nf

er or be st ow up on .” Id

. (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. The Co ur t th en

ex am in ed th e who le st at ut e an d co nc lu de d t h a t “i n t he co nt ex t of th e [Act ’s]

co m pr eh en si v e , r e t ic ul at ed reg im e fo r wor ke r be ne fit s— in whi ch § 90 6 pl ay s a

5 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 5 of 18p i v o t a l ro le —‘award ed co m pe ns at io n’ is m

uc h m or e se ns ib ly in te rp ret ed to m ean
‘stat ut or il y

en ti tl ed to co m

pe ns at io n b ecau se of d is ab il it y .’ ” Id

. at 1 35 7.
The Co ur t li st ed se ve ral reas on s fo r it s co nc lu si on
. Fi rs t, th e Co ur t no te d th at , if “ ne wly award ed co m

pe ns at io n” m ean s a fo rm al co m pe ns at io n ord er, th e Act will

no t wor k as Co ng res s in te nd ed

. Acco rd in g to th e Co ur t, th e m ax im um an d m in im

um
cap s on di sa bi li ty pa y m e n t am ou nt s in § 90 6( b) “ ap pl [y ] gl ob al ly, to al l di sa bi li ty
cl ai m s.” Id

. at 13 58

. Howev er, the se cap s on ly wor k if § 90 6( c) “ ap pl ie s gl ob al ly”

as well

. Id

. Yet, acce pt in g th e pl ai nt iff ’s (an d Bo ro sk i’s) po si ti on on th e “ ne wly
award e d co m

pe ns at io n” cl au se wou ld m ak e § 90 6( c) irr el ev an t in al l bu t a few
in st an ces as , in m os t cas es , th e em pl oyer pa y s be n e f

it s vo lu nt ari ly an d no fo rm al

co m pe ns at io n award is ev er en te red

. Id

. The co ur t ex pr es sl y reject ed as un so un d th e pl ai nt iff ’s su gg es ti on th at a fo rm al award sh ou ld is su e in ev ery cas e. Id

. Seco nd , th e Co ur t sa id it s in te rp ret at io n f ur th ers th e Act’s go al of

co m pe ns at in g d is ab il it y , “ de fin ed as i nc ap aci ty becau se of i nju ry to earn th e wag es
whi ch th e em

pl oyee was rece iv in g at th e ti me of in ju ry

. ” Rob er ts , 13 2 S. Ct

. at 13 59 (ci ti ng 33 U.S.C. § 90 2( 10 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. On th e ot he r ha nd , th e pl ai nt iff ’s (an d Bo r o s k i ’s ) po si ti on wou ld tre at si m il arl y si tu at ed em pl oyees
di ffer en tl y
. Id

. As th e Co ur t no te d, “ two em pl oyees wh o e a r n th e sa m e sa la ry an d

su f f e r t h e sa m e in

jury on th e sa m e da y co ul d be en ti tl ed to di ffer en t rat es of

6 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 6 of 18co m

pe ns at io n ba se d on th e ha pp en st an ce of th ei r ob ta in in g or de rs in di ffer en t fis cal

y ears .” Id

. Thi rd , th e C ou rt sa id it s in te rp ret at io n wou ld di sc ou rag e ga m es m an sh ip

. Co nv ers el y , th e pl ai nt iff ’s (an d Bo ro sk i’s) po si ti on wou ld st ro ng ly en co ur ag e

em pl oyees to de la y th e en try of a fo rm al co m pe ns at io n awa r d t o a l a t e r y ear. The

co ur t de cl in ed to “ rewar d em pl oyees wit h win df

al ls fo r in it ia t i n g un ne ces sa ry
ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc eed in gs , w h il e si m ul ta ne ou sl y pu ni sh in g em pl oyers who ha ve

co m pl ie d fu ll y

wit h t he ir s ta tu to ry

ob li ga ti on s.” Id

. at 1 36 0.
Fi na ll y , th e Co ur t ex pr e ss ly reject ed th e pl ai nt iff ’s co un te rarg um en t th at

“ award ” in ot he r pr ov is io ns of t h e A c t mea ns a fo rm al co m pe ns at io n award

. The
Co ur t ack no wled ge d th at it no rm al ly pr es um es t h a t C on gr es s in te nd ed id en ti cal

wor ds to ha ve th e sa m e m ean in g. St il l, th e Co ur t fo un d t he pre su m pt io n o ve rco m e

“ be cau se se ve ral of th e pr ov is io ns of th e Act wou ld m ak e no se ns e if ‘award’ we re
read as [ th e p la in ti ff] pro po se s.” Id

. A ft er de ci ding Rob er ts , th e Su pr em e Co ur t gr an te d th e Defen da nt s’ pe ti ti on fo r

cert io rari , va cat ed Bor os ki I , an d rem an de d fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n in li gh t of
Rob er ts

. Dir ect or

, Off ic e of W ork er s' Co m pe nsati on Pro gr ams , Dep ar tmen t of La bo r
v. Bor os ki , 13 2 S .Ct. 2 44 9 (2 01 2)

. II
. REMAINI NG IS SUES ON APP E AL AND CONTENT IO NS OF THE

7 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 7 of 18PARTIE S

In Rob er ts , th e Su pr em e Co ur t c o n cl us iv el y de ci de d th e fir st is su e in th is

ap pe al

. In fact , B or os ki co nc ed es as m uc h. Se e Su pp le m en ta l Br ie f fo r Pet it io ne rApp el la nt at 3. Bu t, ne it he r th is co ur t in Bor os ki I no r th e Su pr em e Co ur t in Rob er ts
ad dr es se d Bo ro sk i’s se co nd arg um en t ba se d on th e “ cu rren tl y r ecei vi ng

co m pe ns at io n” cla us e. Ther efo re, t hi s i ss ue rem ai ns op en
. Mo reo ve r, th is is su e is sq ua rel y be fo re us
. Eve n as su m in g th at Bo ro sk i’s
be ne fit s fo r 20 02 are go ve rn ed by th e “ ne wly award ed cl au se ,” th e am ou nt of

Bo ro sk i’s be ne fit pa y m en ts fo r each y ear aft er he be cam e di sa bl ed (2 00 3– 20 07 ) m us t
be de te rm in ed un de r th e “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g” cl au se
. As th e Dire ct or fo r th e Offi ce
of W or ke rs ’ Co m

pe ns at i o n Pro gr am s ex pl ai ne d in hi s op en in g br ie f to th is co ur t,

“ [b ]ecaus e Bo ro sk i was be in g co m pe ns at ed at th e m ax im

um rat e, hi s an nu al be ne fit
in crea se s (fo r as lo ng as hi s cal cu la te d co m pe ns at io n rat e rem ai ns ab ov e th e

m ax im um rat e) were th e res ul t of se ct io n 6( c)’s ‘curre nt ly r e c e i v i n g’ cl au se rat he r
th an [3 3 U.S.C. § 91 0( f)].” App el le e Bri ef fo r Dire ct o r , O f f i c e of W or ke rs ’
Co m pe ns at io n P ro gr am s at 18 n.1 1.
The pa rti es ha ve fil ed su pp le m en ta l bri efs on th is is su e. Bo ro sk i co nt in ue s to

co nt en d th at “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g” m ean s act ua l p h ys i c a l rece ip t. He arg ue s th at
in te rp ret in g th is ph ras e to m ean “ cu rren tl y en ti tl ed to ” wou ld do vi ol en ce to th e pl ai n

8 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 8 of 18la ng ua ge of t he st at ut e. Su pp le m en ta l Br ie f fo r Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t at 8.

Fu rth erm or e, Bo ro sk i co nt en ds th at § 90 6( c) crea te s two di ffer en t

co m pe ns at io n sch em es : on e fo r in di vi du al s wh o a re t ot al ly an d per m an en t di sa bl ed

an d on e fo r al l ot he r fo rm s of di sa bi li ty. The “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g” cl au se ex pr es sl y
li m it s it se lf to th os e who are to ta l l y an d pe rm an en tl y di sa bl ed

. Se e 33 U.S.C. § 90 6( c) (“ [Nat io na l av erag e week ly wag e de te rm in at io n s ] sh al l ap pl y to

em pl oyees
. . . cu rren tl y rece i v i n g co m pe ns at io n fo r pe rm an en t to ta l
di sa bi li ty

. . . du rin g su ch pe rio d.” ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Bo ro sk i con te nd s, th eref or e,
th at th e “ ne wly award ed ” cl au se , wh ic h i s n ot so li m it ed , do es no t ap pl y to pe rs on s
who a r e to ta ll y an d pe rm an en tl y di sa bl ed

. Bec au se th e “ ne wly award ed cl au se ”

ap pl ie s to on e gr ou p of ind iv id ua ls an d th e “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g” cl au se ap pl ie s to a
di ffer en t gr ou p, Bo ro sk i arg ue s th ere is no pr ob le m wit h in te rp ret in g th e two cl au se s
di ffer en tl y
. In fact , he sa y s th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e st at u t e s h o ws th at Co ng res s
in te nd ed to do jus t th at

. Tho se w h o a re no t to ta ll y an d pe rm an en tl y di sa bl ed wil l
ha ve th ei r be ne fit s de te rm in ed acco rd in g to th e y ear th ey be ca m e en ti tl ed to th em
. Co nv ers el y , in di vi du al s who are to ta ll y an d pe rm an en tl y di sa bl ed sh ou ld ha ve th ei r
be ne fit s de te rm in ed acco rd in g to th e ti m e th ey “ cu rren tl y ” (m ean in g act ua ll y ) rece iv e
th em
. Add it io na ll y , Bo ro sk i co nt en ds th at th is in te rp ret at io n wou ld av oi d th e
di sp arat e t r e a t ment co nc ern th e Su pr em e Co ur t id en ti fie d in Rob er ts

. Se e Rob er ts ,

9 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 9 of 1813 2 S . Ct. at 13 59 –6 0.

Defen da nt s res po nd th at “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g co m pe ns at io n,” read in co nt ex t,

m ean s cu rren tl y en ti tl ed to co m pe ns at io n. Defen da nt s ack no wled ge th at th ei r
po si ti on “ gi ve s li tt le to th e di st in ct io n be twee n th e wor ds ‘awarde d’ an d ‘recei vi ng ,’ ”
bu t no ne th el es s co nt en d th ei r po si ti on is m or e co ns is te nt wit h th e Act as a who le

. Se e
Su pp le m en ta l Bri ef of th e Dire ct or , Of fic e of W or ke rs ’ Co m

pe ns at io n Pro gr a ms at
37 (h erei na fte r “ Dire ct or ’s Su pp le m en ta l Br.”)

. Bec au se th e arg um en ts of th e ot he r
de fen da nt s la rg el y m irr or th e arg um en ts of th e Dire ct or of th e Offi ce of W or ke rs ’
Co m pe ns at io n Pro gr am s (th e “ Dire ct or ”), al l refe ren ces to th e Dire ct or ’s po si ti on or
in te rp ret at io n a ls o re fer t o t he po si ti on of t he ot he r de fen da nt s.
II I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
W e rev ie w qu es ti on s of “ pu re st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n” de no vo
. Bur li s o n v.
McDo na ld ’s Co rp

. , 45 5 F .3d 12 42 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).

IV. ANALYSIS
W e b eg in whe re th e Su pr em e Co ur t be ga n in Rob er ts

. W e co ns id er wh et he r
th e ph ras e “cu r r e n t l y re cei vi ng co m pe ns at io n” is “ pl ai n an d un am bi gu ou s
. . . wi th

reg ard to th e pa rti cu l a r d i s p ut e in [th is ] cas e.” Rob in so n v. Sh el l Oil Co

. , 5 19 U.S.
33 7, 34 0, 11 7 S. Ct

. 84 3, 84 6 (1 99 7)

. W e ag r e e w i t h B o r o sk i th at “ to rece iv e”

us ua ll y m ean s “ to ta ke in on e’s ha nd , or in to on e’s po ss es si on
. ” XIII Oxf or d Eng li sh

10 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 10 of 18Dict io na ry 31 4 (2 d ed ., 19 89 ); se e al so Mer ria m -Webs te r’s Co ll eg ia te D ic tio na

ry 97 2 (1 0t h ed ., 20 02 ) (“ to co m e i n t o p o s se ss io n.” )

. Bu t “ to rece iv e” can al so m ean “ to

pe rm it on se lf to be th e ob ject of (s om e act io n, et c.); to al lo w (s om et hi ng ) to be do ne

to , or (s om e qu al it y , et c.) to be co nf erre d on , on es el f.” XIII Oxf or d Eng li sh
Dict io na ry 31 4 (2 d ed ., 19 89 ) (em ph as is ad de d) ; se e a l

s o W eb st er’s Thi rd New

In te rn at io na l Dict io na ry 18 94 (2 00 2) (“ to be pl aced un de r th e bu rd en , ch arg e, or

co ns tra in t of

: be m ad e su bjec t to ”). Thi s s eco nd m ean in g i s s im il ar t o t he m ean in g
of “ award ” th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t ad op te d in Rob er ts

. Fu rth er, we m us t ex am in e th e
al te rn at iv e m ean in gs of “ to rece iv e” in th e co nt ex t of th e o v e r a l l st at ut or y sc he m e.
Se e Rob er ts , 13 2 S. Ct

. at 13 57 (“ St at ut o r y l a n g ua ge
. . . can no t be co ns tru ed in a

va cu um
. It is a fu nd am en ta l can on of st at ut or y co n s t r u c ti on th at th e wor ds of a

st at ut e mu s t b e r e ad in th ei r co nt ex t an d wit h a vi ew to th ei r pl ace in th e ov eral l

st at ut or y sch em e.”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. Fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we ho ld th at “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g co m pe ns at io n” in § 9 06 (c) m ean s “ cu rren tl y en ti tl ed to co m

pe ns at io n.”
A. The Dire cto r’s Pos iti on Ha rmoniz es the “Cu rren tly Recei vi ng ” an d “Ne w ly Aw ar ded” Cla us es of § 90 6( c)
Bo ro sk i co nt en ds th at th e “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g” an d “ ne wly award ed ” cl au se s
of § 90 6( c) crea te two di ffer en t co m pe ns at or y sc he m es : on e fo cu se d on act ua l rece ip t,

11 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 11 of 18an d on e fo cu se d on en ti tl em en t. Thi s arg um en t tu rn s on hi s as se rti on th at th e “ ne wly

award ed ” cl au se do es no t ap pl y to pe rs on s wit h to ta l, pe rm an en t di sa bi li ty. W e reject
th is ass ert io n.
As th e Dire ct or po in ts ou t, ev ery pe rs on en ti tl ed to be ne fit s un de r th e

act —i nc lu di ng a pe rs on who is t o t a l l y an d pe rm an en tl y di sa bl ed —i s “ ne wly
award ed ” be ne fit s at so m e po in t. Dire ct o r ’s Su pp le m en ta l Br. at 33

. The “ ne wly
award ed ” cl au se do es no t ex cl ud e to ta ll y an d pe rm an en tl y di sa bl ed pe rs on s fro m it s

reac h. Se e 33 U.S.C. § 90 6( c) (“ Dete rm in at io ns un de r su bs ect io n (b ) ( 3 ) o f th is

se ct io n wit h res pe ct to a pe rio d sh al l ap pl y to

. . . th os e ne wly award ed co m pe ns at io n
du rin g su ch pe rio d.” ). The Su pr em e Co ur t ack no wled ge d as m uc h in Rob er ts whe n
it sa id , “ th e [s ta tu to ry m ax im um ] cap [in § 90 6( b) (1 )] fu nc ti on s as Co ng res s in te nd ed

on ly if § 90 6( c) ap pl ie s gl ob al ly, to al l [d is ab il it y cl ai m s]

. ” Ro b e rt s , 13 2 S. Ct

. at
13 58

. Thu s, th e “ ne wly award ed ” cl au se ap pl ie s to Bo ro sk i. Fu rth erm or e, it di ct at es
th at hi s be ne fit s fo r 20 02 —t he y ear he be cam e en ti tl e d to th em —b e cal cu la te d in
refe ren ce to th e 20 02 na ti on al av erag e week ly wag e. Se e Rob er ts , 13 2 S. Ct

. at 13 63

. Bec au se we reject Bo ro sk i’s as se rti on tha t the “ ne w ly aw arded ” cl au se do es no t

a p p ly to hi m , we al so reject hi s arg um en t th at § 90 6( c) crea te s two di ffe r e n t

co m pe ns at or y sc he m es
. Bo ro sk i con te nd s th at th e “ ne wly award ed ” cl au se fo cu se s

on a cl ai m an t’s en ti tl em en t to be ne fit s whi le th e “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g” cl au se fo cu se s

12 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 12 of 18on a cl ai m an t’s act ua l rece ip t of be ne fit s. Thi s in te rp ret at io n wou ld crea te a co nf li ct
be twee n th e two cl au se s. Usi ng th is cas e as an ex am pl e, Bo ro sk i’s em

pl oyer wou ld , fo ll owi ng Rob er ts , ap pl y th e “ ne wly award ed ” cl au se an d cal cu la te Bo ro sk i’s week ly
be ne fit am ou nt fo r 20 02 us in g th e 20 02 na ti on al av era g e w e e k ly wag e. Bec au se
Bo ro sk i is en ti tl ed to th e m ax im um rat e un de r § 90 6( b) (1 ), hi s week ly be ne fit am ou nt
fo r 20 02 wou ld be $9 66 .08

. Se e Dep ’t of Lab or , Div is io n of Lon gs ho re an d Harb or
W o r k e r ’ s C o m p e n s a t i o n ( D L H W C ) , N A W W I n f o r m a t i o n , ht tp :/ /www.d ol .go v/ owc p/ dl hwc /N A W W inf o. htm (last vi si te d on Octo be r 22 , 20 12 ).
If we acce pt ed Bo ro sk i’s arg um en t, ho wev er, th e “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g” cl au se wou ld
al so ap pl y to hi m , an d hi s em pl oyer wou ld be req ui red to cal cu la te hi s 20 02 week ly
be ne fit pa y m en t u si ng th e m ax im um rat e fo r 20 08 ; th us , hi s weekl y be ne fit am ou nt

wou ld be $1 ,16 0.3 6. Id

. As a res ul t, fo r th e y ear 20 02 , th e two cl au se s wou ld di rect

two di ffer en t an d irr eco nc il ab le week ly ben efi t p ay m en t am ou nt s. Fu rth er, t he Act

pr ov id es no gu id an ce reg ard in g whi ch am ou nt Bo ro sk i’s em pl oyer s ho ul d pa y
. Th e r e f or e, ad op ti ng Bo ro sk i’s in te rp ret at io n wou ld vi ol at e th e bl ack le tt er ru le of

st at ut or y co ns tru ct io n th at “ a co ur t m us t

. . . in te rp ret [a] st at ut e as a sym m et ric al an d

co he ren t reg ul at or y sc he m e, an d fit , if po ss ib le , al l pa rts in to an ha rm on io us who le .”

Foo d & Dru g Admi n. v. Bro wn & W il li ams on To ba cco Co rp

. , 52 9 U.S. 12 0, 13 3, 12 0
S. Ct . 12 91 , 13 01 (20 00 ) (i nt ern al cit at io ns an d q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)

.

13 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 13 of 18C on ve rs el y , th e Dire ct or ’s in te rp ret at io n ha rm on iz es th e two cl au se s. B y

in te rp ret in g cu rren tl y rece iv in g” to m ean “ cu rren tl y en ti tl ed to ,” th e two cl au se s wil l

res ul t in o n ly on e be ne fit pa y m en t am ou nt fo r a cl ai m an t’s fir st y ear of di sa bi li ty.
B e c a u s e th e Dire ct or ’s in te rp ret at io n av oi ds th e co nf li ct Bo ro sk i’s in te rp ret at io n

wou ld crea te , hi s p os it io n i s t he m or e se ns ib le on e.
B. The Di rect or ’s Pos iti on Is Mor e Con si st ent w ith § 9 10 (f).
Sect io n 91 0( f) pr ov id es fo r an n u a l i nc reas es in be ne fit pa y m en ts to pe rs on s
who are to ta ll y an d per m an en tl y di sa bl ed

. Se e 33 U.S.C. § 91 0( f). The se in crea se s

are ti ed to th e y earl y in crea se in th e na ti on al av erag e week ly wag e, an d cap pe d at fiv e
pe rcen t. Id

. U nde r the D ir ect or ’s in te rp ret at io n, th e “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g” cl au se of § 90 6( c)

pr od uc es a si m il ar resu lt as § 91 0( f). Each y ear, a to ta ll y an d per m an en tl y di sa bl ed

pe rs on ’s b en efi t pa y

m en t am ou nt to who m th e cl au se ap pl ie s wi ll in crea se at a rat e
eq ua l t o t he in crea se in th e n at io na l av erag e week ly w ag e.
The res ul t is al so co ns is te nt wit h th e Act’s go al to co m pe ns at e di sa bi li ty: th e

co m pe ns at io n to be ba se d on an e mp l o ye e ’s wag es “ at th e ti me of in ju ry .” Se e
Ro b e r t s , 13 2 S. Ct

. at 13 59 (em ph as is in or ig in al ). A to ta ll y an d pe rm an en tl y
di sa bl ed em

pl oyee rece iv es co m

pe ns at io n to rep la ce th e wag es he was earn in g at th e
ti m e he be cam e di s a b l e d , an d a co st -o f-l iv in g in crea se each y ear th erea fte r, bu t no

14 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 14 of 18m or e.
In co nt ras t to th e co ns is te nc y ach ie ve d by th e Dire c t o r ’s in te rp ret at io n,

Bo ro sk i’s int erp ret at io n of § 90 6( c)’s “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g” cl au se wou ld pr od uc e a

res ul t who ll y di ffer en t fro m § 91 0( f) an d in co ns is te nt wi t h th e Act’s go al

. Rat he r
th an gr ad ua ll y in crea si ng be ne fit pa y m en ts to m ai nt ai n th e va lu e o f an in jure d

em pl oyee’s wag es , de te rm in ed “ at th e ti m e of in jury,” em pl oyer s w h o fir st pa y
be ne fit s to an in

jure d em pl oyee in a y ear ot he r th an th e y ear of inju ry wou ld pa y al l

pa st du e pa y m en ts ba se d on th e na ti on al av erag e week ly wag e fo r th e y ear in whi ch
th e fir st pa y m en t is m ad e. Th is cal cu la ti on wou ld effe ct iv el y gi ve th e in jure d

em pl oyee a rai se to th e la te r y ear’s nat io na l aver ag e week ly wag e, an d wou ld m ak e
th at rai s e ret ro act iv e to th e da te of hi s di sa bi li ty. Thi s res ul t is in co ng ru ou s wit h § 91 0( f), whi ch co nt em

pl at es a gr a d u a l in crea se in be ne fit pa y m en t am ou nt s fo r

c la im an ts who are to ta ll y an d pe rm an en tl y di sa bl ed

. Thu s, we be li ev e th at t h e
Dire ct or ’s i n t e r p ret at io n is th e on e whi ch is m or e co ns is te nt wit h th e Act’s

“ co m pr eh en si ve , ret ic ul at ed reg im e fo r wor ke r be ne fit s.” Rob er ts , 13 2 S. Ct

. at 13 57

. Bo ro sk i co nt en ds th a t C o n g r es s ad op te d hi s in te rp ret at io n of th e “ cu rren tl y

rece iv in g” cl au se to en co ur ag e pr om pt pa y m en t of be ne fit s. W e di sa gr ee. A cl ai m an t
is cl earl y en ti tl ed to in te res t o n e ach pa st du e b en efi t p ay m en t. Se e Rob er ts , 13 2 S.
Ct

. at 13 63 ; se e al

so Mat u li c v. Dir ect or

, Off ic e of W or ker s’ Co mpe ns at io n

15 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 15 of 18Pro gr ams , 15 4 F.3 d 10 52 , 10 59 (9 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (p re-ju dg m en t in te res t is m an da to ry );

Sp ro ul l v. Dir ect or

, Of fi ce of W or ker s’ Co mpe ns at io n Pro gr ams , 8 6 F.3 d 89 5, 90 0 (9 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (s a me)

. In te res t pa y m en ts ad eq ua te ly co m pe ns at e an em

pl oyee fo r

a n y d e la y in pa y m en t. Se e Rob er ts , 13 2 S. Ct

. at 13 63 (ci ti ng Sp ro ul l , 86 F.3 d at
90 0)

. Add it io na ll y , th es e in te res t pa y m en ts sh ou ld di sc ou rag e em pl oyers fro m
refu si ng to prom

ptl y pa y le git im at e cl ai m s. Moreo ve r, un de r Bo ro sk i’s in te rp ret at io n,

an in jure d em pl oyee who se di sa bi li ty pa y m en ts be gi n in a y ear ot he r th an th e y ear of
in jury wou ld rece iv e bo th hi gh er be ne fit pa y m en t am ou nt s an d in te res t fro m th e da te
th at each su ch pa y m en t sh ou ld ha ve be en pa id

. W e se e no reas on to in te rp ret th e Act
in su ch a m an ne r.
C. The Dire cto r’s Pos iti on Avo id s the D isp ar at e Tr ea tm en t of Si m ila rl y Si tua ted Cl ai m an ts
Fi na ll y , Bo ro sk i’s in te r p r e t at io n wou ld tre at si m il arl y si tu at ed em pl oyees
di ffer en tl y
. Und er Bo ro sk i’s in te rp ret a t i on of th e “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g” cl au se , cl ai m an ts who rece iv e pa y m en t y ears aft er th ey be co me d i s ab le d wou ld rece iv e, in
ad di ti on to in te res t, hi gh er be ne fit s f o r th e sa m e pe rio d of di sa bi li ty t ha n cl ai m an ts
who ti m el y rece iv e th ei r be ne fit s. Fo r ex am pl e, a p e r s o n w h o , on th e sa m e da y as
Bo ro sk i, su ffer ed th e sa m e in jury as Bo ro sk i, bu t who rece iv ed be n e f i t p a y m en ts
be gi nn in g in 20 02 , wou l d r e cei ve ap pr ox im at el y $3 0,0 00 le ss th an Bo ro sk i. Se e

16 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 16 of 18App el la nt ’s Br. at 8 n .2.

Of co ur se , Bo ro sk i is no t si m il arl y si tu at ed in on e ve ry im po rta nt res pe ct

. He
ha d to wait si x y ears to ge t pa id

. Bu t, as no te d in th e pr eced in g se ct io n, Bo ro sk i is

en ti tl ed to in te res t, whi ch ad eq ua te ly co m pe ns at es hi m fo r hi s em

pl oyer’s de la y
. Se e
Rob er ts , 13 2 S . Ct. at 13 63

. Co nv ers el y , th e Dire ct or ’s po si ti on av oi ds th is di sp arat e tre at m en t pr ob le m
. Und er th e Dire ct or ’s in te rp ret at io n, Bo ro sk i rece iv es th e sa m e be ne fit s as a si m il arl y
si tu at ed em

pl oyee who was fir st in

jure d an d who fir st rece iv ed pa y m en t in 20 02 , an d,
ad di ti on al ly, Bo ro sk i rece iv es in te res t on al l la te pa y m en ts , to co m pe ns at e hi m fo r th e
de la y
. In Rob er ts , th e pl ai nt iff ’s in te rp ret at io n of t h e “ ne wly award ed ” cl au se al so

crea te d a di sp arat e tre at m en t pr ob le m
. Se e Rob er ts , 13 2 S. Ct

. at 13 59

. In reject in g
th e pl ai nt iff ’s in te rp ret at io n, th e Co ur t r e a s o ne d th at it s al te rn at iv e in te rp ret at io n

av oi de d an y d i sp arat e tre at m en t. Id

. at 13 59 –6 0. W e do th e sa m e in ad op ti ng th e
Dire ct or ’s in te rp ret at io n o f th e “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g” cla us e.
V. CONCLUSI ON

In acco rd an ce wit h Ro be rts , we ho ld th at “ ne wly award ed co m pe ns at io n” in 33
U.S.C. § 90 6( c) m ean s “ ne wly en ti tl ed to co m pe ns at io n.” Fu rth er, fo r th e fo reg oi ng

reas o n s , we ho ld th at “ cu rren tl y rece iv in g co m pe ns at io n” in 33 U.S.C. § 90 6( c)

17 Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 17 of 18m ean s “ cu rren tl y en ti tl ed to co m pe ns at io n.” The refo re, th e de ci si on of th e di st ric t

co ur t i s AFFIRMED

.

18

Case: 11-10033 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 18 of 18