Case Name: Leroy HOLLAND and P. J. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner, Seventh Compensation District, Bureau of Employees Compensation, United States Department of Labor, Appellants, v. HARRISON BROTHERS DRY DOCK AND REPAIR YARD, INC., and Aetna Insurance Company, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1962-10-02
Citations: 308 F.2d 570
Docket Number: No. 19232
Parties: Leroy HOLLAND and P. J. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner, Seventh Compensation District, Bureau of Employees Compensation, United States Department of Labor, Appellants, v. HARRISON BROTHERS DRY DOCK AND REPAIR YARD, INC., and Aetna Insurance Company, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 308
Pages: 570–570

Head Matter:
Leroy HOLLAND and P. J. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner, Seventh Compensation District, Bureau of Employees Compensation, United States Department of Labor, Appellants, v. HARRISON BROTHERS DRY DOCK AND REPAIR YARD, INC., and Aetna Insurance Company, Appellees.
No. 19232.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 2, 1962.
Morton Hollander, David L. Rose, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., W. S. Murphy, Lucedale, Miss., Vernol R. Jansen, Jr., U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala.,, for appellants.
Alexander Foreman, Jr., Alton R„ Brown, Jr., Mobile, Ala., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The district court held that Leroy Holland, employed as a laborer by Harrison Brothers, could not recover under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'1 Compensation Act. Accordingly, the district court set aside the award of compensation made by the Deputy Commissioner as unlawful and beyond his jurisdiction and entered judgment for the plaintiffs.
On appeal, this Court, in the circumstances of the case, relying on Calbeck v. Travelers Ins. Co., 1962, 370 U.S. 114, 82 S.Ct. 1196, 8 L.Ed.2d 368, reversed' the district court. On rehearing, we reaffirm our original holding, but we are of the opinion that the case should be remanded since the district court did not go beyond the jurisdictional issue.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for rehearing and herewith modify our earlier judgment to the extent that we order the case remanded for the district court to determine (1) the causal connection, if any, between the claimant's injury of June 20, 1957 and his physical condition subsequent to September 3, 1957 and (2) whether substantial evidence supports the findings that the claimant was temporarily partially disabled for a period and continues to be temporarily totally disabled.