Source: https://m.openjurist.org/600/f2d/1218
Timestamp: 2020-08-07 19:09:09
Document Index: 154956690

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 904', '§ 908', '§ 8173', '§ 2585', '§ 2105', '§ 2105', '§ 8171']

600 F2d 1218 Johnson v. United States | OpenJurist
600 F. 2d 1218 - Johnson v. United States
600 F2d 1218 Johnson v. United States
The Longshoremen's Act, unlike the Federal Employees Compensation Act, provides that the employer, and not the United States, shall be liable for and shall secure payment to his employees for covered disability or death. 33 U.S.C. § 904. The Longshoremen's Act also specifically provides for benefits that may be recovered, depending on the injury that is sustained. 33 U.S.C. §§ 908-09. Moreover, 5 U.S.C. § 8173 provides that coverage under the Longshoremen's Act is exclusive and in lieu of all other remedies against the United States for covered injuries.5 See Martin v. United States, 566 F.2d 895, 897 (4th Cir. 1977); United States v. Charles, 130 U.S. App.D.C. 151, 153, 397 F.2d 712, 714, Cert. denied, 393 U.S. 897, 89 S.Ct. 220, 21 L.Ed.2d 178 (1968); Dolin v. United States, 371 F.2d 813, 814-15 (6th Cir. 1967); Rizzuto v. United States, 298 F.2d 748, 749 (10th Cir. 1961); Aubrey v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 67, 254 F.2d 768, 770 (1958). Accordingly, if at the time of her death, the decedent was (1) an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United States; and (2) her death occurred while she was acting within the scope of her employment; then (3) the decedent's estate may be entitled to compensation under the Longshoremen's Act; and (4) compensation under the Longshoremen's Act is exclusive and in lieu of all other liability of the United States. Martin, 566 F.2d at 897; Charles, 130 U.S.App.D.C. at 130, 397 F.2d at 714; Dolin, 371 F.2d at 814-15.
Findings of fact will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). J. A. Jones Const. Co. v. Englert Engineering Co., 438 F.2d 3, 5 (6th Cir. 1971). A finding of fact will be deemed clearly erroneous only where it is against the clear weight of the evidence or when upon review of the evidence, the appellate court "is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1958); Jones, 438 F.2d at 5. We conclude that appellees have failed to establish that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding the decedent was an employee of the Department. See also 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2585.
The Agreement merely paraphrases what already is provided by statute. All employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, like the decedent, are specifically excluded from coverage under civil service laws and the Federal Employees Compensation Act. 5 U.S.C. § 2105(c). In United States v. Forfari, 268 F.2d 29, 32-33 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 361 U.S. 902, 80 S.Ct. 211, 4 L.Ed.2d 157 (1959), the court explained the purpose and relationship between § 2105(c) and §§ 8171 Et seq. The court held:
A nonappropriated fund instrumentality is one that is not funded by congressional appropriation. See United States v. Hopkins, 427 U.S. 123, 125 n. 2, 96 S.Ct. 2508, 49 L.Ed.2d 361 (1976)