Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/469
Timestamp: 2015-01-29 22:33:02
Document Index: 769248989

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 14', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 702', '§ 702', '§ 702', '§ 702', '§ 702', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 3', '§ 5', '§ 7', '§ 14', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 14', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 2', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 21']

ESTATE OF Floyd COWART, Petitioner v. NICKLOS DRILLING COMPANY et al. | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews ESTATE OF Floyd COWART, Petitioner v. NICKLOS DRILLING COMPANY et al.
505 U.S. 469 (112 S.Ct. 2589, 120 L.Ed.2d 379)
Argued: March 25, 1992.
[HTML] dissent, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR
The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq., creates a comprehensive federal scheme to compensate workers injured or killed while employed upon the navigable waters of the United States. The Act allows injured workers, without forgoing compensation under the Act, to pursue claims against third parties for their injuries. But § 33(g) of the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. 933(g), provides that under certain circumstances if a third-party claim is settled without the written approval of the worker's employer, all future benefits including medical benefits are forfeited. The question we must decide today is whether the forfeiture provision applies to a worker whose employer, at the time the worker settles with a third party, is neither paying compensation to the worker nor is yet subject to an order to pay under the Act.
* The injured worker in this case was Floyd Cowart, and his estate is now the petitioner. Cowart suffered an injury to his hand on July 20, 1983, while working on an oil drilling platform owned by Transco Exploration Company (Transco). The platform was located on the Outer Continental Shelf, an area subject to the Act. 43 U.S.C. 1333(b). Cowart was an employee of the Nicklos Drilling Company (Nicklos), who along with its insurer Compass Insurance Co. (Compass) are respondents before us. Nicklos and Compass paid Cowart temporary disability payments for 10 months following his injury. At that point Cowart's treating physician released him to return to work, though he found Cowart had a 40% permanent partial disability. App. 75. The Department of Labor notified Compass that Cowart was owed permanent disability payments in the total amount of $35,592.77, plus penalties and interest. This was an informal notice which did not constitute an award. No payments were made.
"(2) If no written approval of the settlement is obtained and filed as required by paragraph (1), or if the employee fails to notify the employer of any settlement obtained from or judgment rendered against a third person, all rights to compensation and medical benefits under this chapter shall be terminated, regardless of whether the employer or the employer's insurer has made payments or acknowledged entitlement to benefits under this chapter." 33 U.S.C. 933(g).
The statute was amended to its present form, the form we have quoted, in 1984. In that year Congress redesignated then subsection (g) to what is now (g)(1) and modified its language somewhat, but did not change the phrase "person entitled to compensation." Congress also added the current subsection (g)(2), as well as other provisions. Following the 1984 amendments the Board decided Dorsey v. Cooper Stevedoring Co., 18 BRBS 25 (1986), app. dism'd 826 F.2d 1011 (CA11 1987). The Board reaffirmed its interpretation in O'Leary of the phrase "person entitled to compensation," saying that because the 1984 amendments had not changed the specific language, Congress was presumed to have adopted the Board's previous interpretation. It noted that nothing in the 1984 legislative history disclosed an intent to overrule the Board's interpretations. The Board decided that the forfeiture provisions of subsection (g)(2), including the final phrase providing that forfeiture occurs "regardless of whether the employer . . . has made payments or acknowledged entitlement to benefits," was a "separate provision applicable to separate situations." 18 BRBS, at 29.
Our interpretation of § 33(g) is reinforced by the fact that the phrase "person entitled to compensation" appears elsewhere in the statute in contexts in which it cannot bear the meaning placed on it by Cowart. For example, § 14(h) of the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. 914(h), requires an official to conduct an investigation upon the request of a person entitled to compensation when, inter alia, the claim is controverted and payments are not being made. For that provision, the interpretation championed by Cowart would be nonsensical. Another difficulty would be presented for the provision preceding § 33(g), § 33(f). It mandates that an employer's liability be reduced by the net amount a person entitled to compensation recovers from a third party. Under Cowart's reading, the reduction would not be available to employers who had not yet begun payment at the time of the third-party recovery. That result makes no sense under the LHWCA structure. Indeed, when a litigant before the BRB made this argument, the Board rejected it, acknowledging in so doing that it had adopted differing interpretations of the identical language in sections 33(f) and 33(g). Force v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp., 23 BRBS 1, 4-5 (1989). This result is contrary to the basic canon of statutory construction that identical terms within an Act bear the same meaning. Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 484, 110 S.Ct. 2499, ----, 110 L.Ed.2d 438 (1990); Sorenson v. Secretary of Treasury, 475 U.S. 851, 860, 106 S.Ct. 1600, 1606, 89 L.Ed.2d 855 (1986). The Board's willingness to adopt such a forced and unconventional approach does not convince us we should do the same. And we owe no deference to the BRB, see supra, at ----.
Cowart's strongest argument to the Court of Appeals was that any ambiguity in the statute favors him because of the deference due the OWCP Director's statutory construction, a deference which Nicklos and Compass concede is appropriate. Brief for Respondents 7. As we have said, we are not faced with this difficult issue because the views of the Director, OWCP, have changed since we granted certiorari. Supra, at ----. It seems apparent to us that it would be quite inappropriate to defer to an interpretation which has been abandoned by the policymaking agency itself. It is noteworthy, moreover, that even prior to this case the position of the Department of Labor has not been altogether consistent. It is true that the Director has twice, albeit in a somewhat equivocal manner, endorsed the Board's rulings in O'Leary and Dorsey. First, in a 1986 circular discussing the Board's Dorsey case a subordinate of the Director stated: "While the Board's position may not be totally consistent with the amended language of Section 33(g), we think it is a rational approach and have advised the Associate Solicitor that we will support this position." United States Dept. of Labor, LHWCA Circular No. 86-3, p. 1 (May 30, 1986). Next, in a Manual published in 1989 the Director again adopted the Board's position that written approval of a settlement is required only from employers who are paying compensation; but the statement ends with a qualifying comment, that "the issue of consent to a settlement can be a complex matter. Judicial interpretation may be necessary to resolve the issue. (See LHWCA CIRCULAR 86-03, 5-30-86)." United States Dept. of Labor, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) Procedure Manual, ch. 3-600, ¶ 9 (Sept. 1989). On the other hand, the Department of Labor has issued regulations (effective in their current form since 1986) which are explicit that the written-approval requirement of § 33(g) applies to a settlement for less than the amount of compensation due under the LHWCA, "regardless of whether the employer or carrier has made payments of sic acknowledged entitlement to benefits under the Act." 20 CFR § 702.281(b) (1991). So the Department of Labor has not been speaking with one voice on this issue. This further diminishes the persuasive power of the Director's earlier decision to endorse the BRB's questionable interpretation, a decision he has since reconsidered.
The history of the Department of Labor regulation goes far toward confirming our view of the significance of the 1984 amendments. The original § 702.281, proposed in 1976 and enacted in final form in 1977, required only that an employee notify his employer and the Department of any third-party claim, settlement, or judgment. 41 Fed.Reg. 34297 (1976); 42 Fed.Reg. 45303 (1977). The sole reference to the forfeiture provisions was a closing parenthetical: "Caution: See 33 U.S.C. 933(g)." In 1985, in response to the 1984 congressional amendments, the Department proposed to amend § 702.281 by replacing the closing parenthetical with a subsection (b), stating that failure to obtain written approval of settlements for amounts less than the compensation due under the Act would lead to forfeiture of future benefits. 50 Fed.Reg. 400 (1985). In response to comments, the final rulemaking modified § 702.281(b) to clarify that the forfeiture provision applied regardless of whether the employer was paying compensation. 51 Fed.Reg. 4284-4285 (1986). Thus the evolution of § 702.281 suggests that at least some elements within the Department of Labor read the 1984 statutory amendments to adopt a rule different from the Board's previous decisions.
As a final line of defense, Cowart's attorney suggested at oral argument that Nicklos' participation in the Transco settlement brought this case outside the terms of § 33(g)(1). Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-7. Relying on the recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in I.T.O. Corporation of Baltimore v. Sellman, 954 F.2d 239, 242-243 (1992), counsel argued that § 33(g)(1) requires written approval only of "settlements with a third person," and that Nicklos' participation in the Transco settlement meant it was not with a third person. Without indicating any view on the merits of this contention, we do not address it because it is not fairly included within the question on which certiorari was granted. See this Court's Rule 14.1(a).
For more than 14 years, the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs interpreted the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq. (LHWCA or the Act), in the very same way that petitioner Floyd Cowart's estate now urges. Indeed, the Director advocated Cowart's position in the Court of Appeals, both before the panel and before that court en banc.
* Ever since the LHWCA was adopted in 1927, it has included some version of the present § 33(g), 33 U.S.C. 933(g), the provision at issue in this case. Because that provision cannot be considered in isolation from the broader context of § 33, or indeed, the LHWCA as a whole, some background on the structure of the Act and the history of § 33's interpretation is essential.
The LHWCA requires employers to provide compensation, "irrespective of fault," for injuries and deaths arising out of covered workers' employment. §§ 3(a) and 4(b), 33 U.S.C. 903(a) and 904(b). In return for requiring the employer to pay statutory compensation without proof of negligence, the Act grants the employer immunity from tort liability, regardless of how serious its fault may have been. See §§ 5(a) and 33(i). Benefits under the LHWCA are strictly limited, generally to medical expenses and two-thirds of lost earnings, and are set out in detailed schedules contained in the Act itself. See §§ 7-9. A fundamental assumption of the Act is that employers liable for benefits will pay compensation "promptly," "directly," and "without an award" having to be issued. See § 14(a).
Section 33(g) of the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. 933(g), addresses the situation in which a claimant-plaintiff settles an action against a third party for less than he would have received under the Act. Under § 33(f), considered alone, the claimant in this situation would always be able to collect the remainder of his statutory benefits from the employer. To protect the employer from having to pay excessive § 33(f) compensation because of an employee's "lowball" settlement, § 33(g) conditions LHWCA compensation, in specified circumstances, upon the employer's written approval of the third-party settlement. See Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers, 390 U.S. 459, 467, 88 S.Ct. 1140, 1145, 20 L.Ed.2d 30 (1968).
This issue apparently was considered first in O'Leary v. Southeast Stevedoring Co., 7 Ben.Rev.Bd.Serv. 144 (1977), aff'd, 622 F.2d 595 (CA9 1980). In that case, the employer denied liability for the death of the claimant's husband, contending that the decedent was not an employee covered by the LHWCA and that the injury did not arise out of his employment. 7 Ben.Rev.Bd.Serv., at 145. The employer persisted in denying liability even after its position was rejected by the Benefits Review Board ("BRB").
See id., at 146-147. Eventually, more than 28 months after her husband's accident, the claimant settled a third-party suit for $37,500. About one month thereafter, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), on remand from the BRB, entered an award for the claimant. The value of the death benefits awarded, assuming that the claimant would live out her normal life expectancy without remarrying, amounted to more than $150,000. See O'Leary v. Southeast Stevedoring Co., 5 Ben.Rev.Bd.Serv. 16 (ALJ) and 20 (ALJ) (1976). At that point, the employer contested liability for any compensation on the ground that, under § 33(g), the claimant had forfeited that compensation by failing to obtain the employer's written approval of the settlement.
The ALJ rejected the employer's position, reasoning that the claimant was not a "person entitled to compensation" at the time of the settlement. The BRB affirmed. The Board pointed out that the "underlying concept" of the LHWCA is that "the employer upon being informed of an injury will voluntarily begin to pay compensation." O'Leary, 7 Ben.Rev.Bd.Serv., at 147 (citing § 14(a)). Further, the Board observed, § 33(g) refers to the conditions under which an employer will be "liable" for compensation under § 33(f); the reference to "liability," the Board reasoned, "contemplates that the employer either be making voluntary payments under the Act or that it has been found liable for benefits by a judicial determination." Id., at 148. Moreover, the Board continued, § 33(b) gives the employer the right to pursue third parties only if the employer is paying compensation under an award. Thus, the premise of employer rights under § 33, the Board concluded, is that the employer is "making either voluntary payments under the Act or pursuant to an award." Ibid. The BRB observed that the employer in O'Leary had not paid compensation either voluntarily or pursuant to an award, but, instead, consistently had denied liability. It could hardly have been clear to the claimant at the time she settled her third-party suit that the BRB would ultimately decide in her favor. Indeed, only after that settlement and after the ALJ award did the employer concede that the claimant represented a "person entitled to compensation," and then only to argue that, for that reason, she had forfeited her right to compensation under § 33(g). The Board emphasized that the employer's interpretation would place claimants in a severe bind:
In Dorsey v. Cooper Stevedoring Co., 18 Ben.Rev.Bd.Serv. 25 (1986), appeal dism'd sub nom. Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Director, 826 F.2d 1011 (CA11 1987), the Board rejected an employer's argument that the final clause of the new § 33(g)(2) should be understood as overturning the O'Leary rule that no duty to obtain approval arises until the employer begins to pay compensation. Subsection (g)(1), the Board stated, reenacted the prior version of § 33(g) as it was interpreted in O'Leary; the new subsection, (g)(2), was intended to apply to situations not covered by (g)(1) or O'Leary. In these situationswhere the employer has neither paid compensation nor acknowledged liability notice, but not written approval, is required. 18 Ben.Rev.Bd.Serv., at 29-30. The Board interpreted the final clause of (g)(2)language that echoes the Board's words in O'Leary to make clear that the notification requirement, described in (g)(2), was not subject to the O'Leary limitation that is incorporated in (g)(1). Id., at 29.
Such was the legal background against which Cowart's claim was considered. In the administrative proceedings, the BRB relied on O'Leary and Dorsey to reject the argument, offered by respondent Nicklos Drilling Company, that by failing to obtain prior written approval of his third-party settlement Cowart had forfeited his LHWCA benefits. Because Nicklos was not paying Cowart benefits, either voluntarily or under an award, the Board reasoned, Cowart was not a "person entitled to compensation" within the meaning of § 33(g)(1), and he therefore was not required to obtain Nicklos' approval of his settlement. 23 Ben.Rev.Bd.Serv. 42, 46 (1989). Instead, the Board held, Cowart was required only to give Nicklos notice of the settlement, as provided in § 33(g)(2). Because Nicklos indisputably had notice of the settlementindeed, it had notice three months before the settlement was consummatedthe Board ruled Cowart was eligible for LHWCA benefits.
On Nicklos' petition for review, the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs ("OWCP")head of the agency charged with administering the Actdefended the Board's interpretation before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. First a panel of the Court of Appeals, and then the full court, by a divided vote sitting en banc, however, rejected the Director's position, ruling that Cowart was a "person entitled to compensation" and was required by § 33(g)(1) to obtain Nicklos' written approval. See 907 F.2d 1552 (1990) (panel), and 927 F.2d 828 (1991) (en banc). We are told that after this Court granted certiorari, and after Cowart filed his opening brief, the Director "reexamined" his position and argued that the interpretation of § 33(g) he had maintained for 14 years, and defended in the Court of Appeals, was inconsistent with the Act's plain meaning.
This Court today agrees with the Director's post-certiorari position that Cowart's claim for compensation is barred by the "clear meaning" of the statute "as written." Ante, at 476. According to the Court, Cowart is plainly a "person entitled to compensation" within the meaning of § 33(g)(1), and his failure to obtain Nicklos' written approval of his third-party settlement requires, by the "plain language" of § 33(g), that he be deemed to have forfeited his statutory benefits. Although the Court does not identify any plausible statutory purpose whatsoever advanced by its reading, and althoughto its creditit acknowledges the "harsh effects" of its interpretation, ante, at 483, the Court ultimately concludes that the language of § 33 compels it to reject Cowart's position.
The "plain language" of subsection (f) in turn suggests that the provision does not apply to Cowart's situation. Subsection (f), by its terms, applies only "if the person entitled to compensation institutes proceedings within the period prescribed in subsection (b)." And the "period prescribed in subsection (b)" begins, by the terms of that subsection, upon the person's "acceptance of compensation under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner, an administrative law judge, or the Board." Cowart's third-party suit was clearly not instituted within this period: he filed suit before any award of LHWCA benefits, and he still has not accepted (or been offered) compensation under any award. Thus, he does not come within the "plain meaning" of subsection (f), and, accordingly, for the reasons given above, he would not be bound by the subsection (g)(1) written-approval requirement. It would also follow that, because Nicklos indisputably received the notice required by subsection (g)(2), that provision would not bar Cowart from receiving LHWCA compensation and medical benefits.
* Looking first to § 33's history, for present purposes the most relevant aspect is the 1984 amendment to § 33(g) through which that provision assumed its present form. The amended provision clearly bears the impress of the Board's O'Leary decision. The reference in § 33(g)(2) to that subsection's applicability, "regardless of whether the employer or the employer's insurer has made payments or acknowledged entitlement to benefits," tracks the limitation recognized in O'Leary a limitation that had been unanimously approved by panels of two Federal Courts of Appeals. The question, then, is whether Congress sought to incorporate that holding or to repudiate it in the 1984 amendments to § 33(g).
The use of the term "employee" in § 33(g)(2) strongly suggests that Congress intended to incorporate the BRB's holding in O'Leary. As mentioned, the language Congress chose for the last clause of § 33(g)(2) indicates that it was aware the Board had adopted a restrictive interpretation of the term "person entitled to compensation." Congress retained that term in connection with the written approval requirement of subsection (g)(1). Yet Congress chose the broad term, "employee," for the notification clause of subsection (g)(2), and "employee," unlike "person entitled to compensation," is a term expressly defined in the statute. See § 2(3).
The Court cannot explain why Congress would have chosen two different terms to apply to the different requirements. Indeed, on the Court's interpretation, the two terms are identical in their extension. On the Court's reading, the term "person entitled to compensation" denotes only a statutory employee who has a claim that, aside from the requirements of § 33(g), would be recognized as valid. And that is exactly the denotation of the term "employee" in connection with the notification requirement. The fact that Congress chose to use different terms in connection with the different § 33(g) requirementsusing, with respect to the written approval requirement, a term that it knew had been narrowly interpreted, and using, with respect to the notification requirement, a term broadly defined in the statute itselfsurely indicates that Congress intended the two terms to have different meanings. Had Congress intended the meaning the Court attributes to it, it would have used the same term in both contexts.
Matters are quite different, however, when (as in the present case) the employer has refused to make statutory payments and is not subject to an enforceable award at the time of settlement. First, the claimant generally will not be able to estimate with certainty whether he will receive any LHWCA benefits, let alone how much. Accordingly, the calculation required by § 33(g)a comparison between LHWCA benefits and settlement amountwill be far more difficult. Second, the claimant who is not receiving LHWCA payments, and who cannot be certain that he ever will receive payments, will have a much more powerful interest in negotiating a third-party settlement that is as favorable as possible. This claimant, unlike its counterpart who is receiving payments, therefore will have a strong incentive independent of the § 33(g) requirementsto protect any interest the employer might have in reducing potential LHWCA liability. Finally, disabled longshore employees, or the families of a longshoreman killed on the job, are likely to be in a highly vulnerable position, subject to financial pressure that may lead them to overvalue a present lump-sum payment and undervalue future periodic payments that might eventually be available under an LHWCA award.
The employer who refuses to pay, by contrast, has taken the position that it owes no LHWCA benefits that may be reduced through a third-party settlement, and thus that it has no real interest in the amount for which the third party settles. Moreover, as has been noted, the claimant who is not receiving benefits has a strong incentive to protect the employer's interest in reducing or eliminating any LHWCA liability that might eventually be imposed. Under the Court's interpretation of § 33(g)(1), however, such an employer in many cases can ensure that it will never be required to pay LHWCA benefits, even if it might otherwise ultimately be determined to be liable, simply by withholding approval of any settlement offer, regardless of amount. In practice, recalcitrant employers will seek to exempt themselves from statutory liability by withholding approval of settlements, hoping that their employees' need for present funds will force them to settle without approval. I cannot believe that Congress intended to require LHWCA claimants to bet their statutory benefits on the possibility that future administrative and perhaps judicial proceedings, years later, might vindicate their position that the employer should have been paying benefitsparticularly when the employer's asserted interest is already adequately protected independently of § 33(g)(1).
The Court recognizes the patent unfairness of this situation, and it as much as admits that its interpretation is out of line with the policies of the Act. See ante, at 483. Nevertheless, the Court holds that the plain meaning of the term "person entitled to compensation" clearly applies to both categories of claimantsthose whose employers have denied liability, as well as those whose employers have acknowledged that they must pay statutory benefits. See ante, at 2595. For that reason, the Court implies, regardless of what Congress may have thought it was accomplishing in the 1984 amendments, the words "person entitled to compensation" simply will not bear the construction O'Leary gave them. See ante, at 478-479.
Even setting aside my doubts, expressed above, about the plain meaning rule's application to this statute, I am not persuaded by the Court's contention. In my view, it does not strain ordinary language to describe claimants whose employers have acknowledged LHWCA liability as "persons entitled to compensation," but to withhold that description from claimants whose employers have denied liability for compensation. This is particularly so, given the context in which the term appears in the statute. Section 33(g)(1) requires the "person entitled to compensation" to compare two figuresthe amount of a settlement offer, on the one hand, and the amount of compensation to which the person is entitled, on the other. But what is that latter figure in a situation in which the employer denies liability in full or in part? Doubtless, the claimant could hazard a guess by consulting the Act's jurisdictional provisions concerning who is covered for which kind of accident, the compensation schedules included in the Act, and, in the case of a disability claim, the opinion of the claimant's doctor that the claimant in fact is disabled. The very nature of the situation, however, is that it is not clear that such a person is indeed "entitled to compensation"that question, after all, is exactly the issue that the employer's position requires to be determined in administrative and perhaps subsequent judicial proceedings. The O'Leary limitation of the term "person entitled to compensation" to the situation in which the claimant's employer has acknowledged liability and commenced payments seems to me fully consistent with the requirements of ordinary language.
It is true, as the Court observes, that under the O'Leary interpretation, the term "person entitled to compensation" would take on different meanings in different contexts. See ante, at 478. This Court, however, has not inflexibly required the same term to be interpreted in the same way for all purposes. Compare Barnhill v. Johnson, 503 U.S. 393, 401-402, 112 S.Ct. 1386, 1391-1392, 118 L.Ed.2d 39 (1992) with id., at 496, 112 S.Ct., at 1393 (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (noting that the maxim is "not inexorable," but arguing that because "nothing in the statute's structure or purpose" counsels otherwise, the Court should have applied it). This Court has recognized:
This case is one in which the statutory term in question should be read contextually, rather than under the assumption that the term necessarily has the same meaning in all contexts. The phrase "person entitled to compensation" is not defined in the statute, and it is susceptible of at least two interpretationsa "formalist" interpretation, according to which one may be entitled to compensation whether or not anyone ever acknowledges that fact, and a "positivist" or "legal realist" interpretation, according to which one is entitled to compensation only if the relevant decisionmaker has so declared. Which of these two senses is "correct" will depend upon context. The latter sense, I have suggested, is appropriate to a context in which liability for compensation is disputed and the employee is called upon to predict the future course of administrative and perhaps judicial proceedingsnot just as to liability, but as to the precise amount of liability. And, in any event, I think, the text and circumstances of the 1984 amendment to § 33(g) indicate that Congress intended to adopt the "realist" interpretation found in O'Leary.
Moreover, the Court simply has failed to apply, or even mention, a maxim of interpretation, specifically applicable to the LHWCA, that strongly supports Cowart's position. This Court long has held that " 'this Act must be liberally construed in conformance with its purpose, and in a way which avoids harsh and incongruous results.' " Director, OWCP v. Perini North River Associates, 459 U.S. 297, 315-316, 103 S.Ct. 634, 646, 74 L.Ed.2d 465 (1983), quoting Voris v. Eikel, 346 U.S., at 333, 74 S.Ct., at 91. The only point at which the Court in this case consults the purposes of the Act is at the end of its opinion, when it assures the reader that its interpretation of the notification requirement of § 33(g)(2)as opposed to its interpretation of the written approval requirement stated in § 33(g)(1)is consistent with the statute's purposes. See ante, at 482. Finally, underscoring its refusal to apply the maxim of liberal construction to this case, the Court ultimately acknowledges that the interpretation of § 33(g) it has adopted has "harsh effects" and "creates a trap for the unwary." Ante, at 483. For my part, I can imagine no more appropriate occasion on which the maxim should be applied.
The BRB consists of persons appointed by the Secretary of Labor and empowered to "hear and determine appeals raising a substantial question of law or fact" with respect to LHWCA benefits claims. § 21(b)(3), 33 U.S.C. 921(b)(3).