Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/718/886/417207/
Timestamp: 2019-10-15 14:27:21
Document Index: 275725673

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 908', '§ 921', '§ 901', '§ 921', '§ 921', '§ 921']

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Unitedstates Department of Labor, Petitioner, v. Cargill, Inc., Northwest National Insurance Co., and Haroldm. Carey, Respondents, 718 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1983) :: Justia
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Unitedstates Department of Labor, Petitioner, v. Cargill, Inc., Northwest National Insurance Co., and Haroldm. Carey, Respondents, 718 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1983)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 718 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1983) Argued and Submitted Aug. 5, 1982. Decided Oct. 5, 1982. Argued In Banc May 11, 1983. Remanded to Panel July 1, 1983. Decided Oct. 18, 1983. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Nov. 21, 1983
On Review of Decision of the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Program Under the Provisions of 33 U.S.C. § 908(f).
The Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Program (Director) petitioned for review of a Benefits Review Board (Board) decision, 33 U.S.C. § 921(c), which affirmed the findings of the administrative law judge (ALJ) that claimant was totally disabled and eligible for benefits but reversed findings that the employer, Cargill, was not entitled to relief under Sec. 8(f) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq., 908(f) (1978). The panel of this court reversed the Board's decision, holding that Cargill was not entitled to relief unless claimant's pre-existing disability was manifest at the time of initial employment.
At the outset, we hold that the Director has standing to petition for review under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c).
Review of the Board's decision is limited to determining whether that decision is erroneous as a matter of law and whether it adheres to the statutory standard governing the Board's review of the ALJ's factual findings. Bumble Bee Seafoods v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Prog., 629 F.2d 1327, 1329 (CA9 1980). The Board must accept the ALJ's findings unless they are contrary to law, irrational, or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Prog. v. Campbell Indus., Inc., 678 F.2d 836, 838 (CA9 1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S. Ct. 726, 74 L. Ed. 2d 951; 33 U.S.C. § 921(b) (3) (substantial evidence standard).
The Director is the only party who has a real interest in protecting the financial integrity of the fund; consequently, the ability to petition for review of a Board decision protects the fund against unnecessary payments. Other circuits have adopted this position, Ingalls Shipbuilding v. White, 681 F.2d 275 (CA5 1982); Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Prog. v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 676 F.2d 110 (CA4 1982); Shahady v. Atlas Tile & Marble Co., 673 F.2d 479 (CADC 1982); see also Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Prog. v. General Dynamics Corp., 705 F.2d 562 (CA1 1983) (petition for review granted); Insurance Co. of North America v. Gee, 702 F.2d 411, 413 n. 2 (CA2 1983) (same). This court has recognized without comment the Director's right to petition for review a Board's decision. See, e.g., Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Prog. v. Campbell Indus., Inc., 678 F.2d 836 (CA9 1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S. Ct. 726, 74 L. Ed. 2d 951; Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Prog. v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 625 F.2d 317 (CA9 1980).
We hold the Director is a proper person to petition for review of a Board's Decision adversely affecting the fund under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c).