Opinion ID: 537771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The 1984 Amendments Claim

Text: 15 As mentioned earlier, the 1984 Amendments to the LHWCA codified the formula for calculating benefits forwarded in Black. These amendments apply to claims pending on the date of enactment, i.e. September 28, 1984. See LHWCA, Pub.L. No. 98-426(g), Sec. 28(a), 98 Stat. 1639, 1655 (1984). A pending claim is one in which a final order has not been entered. Yalowchuk v. General Dynamics Corp., 17 BRBS 131 (1985). Because the ALJ's Decision and Order became final in March 1982, appellees argue that the amendments cannot apply here. Appellant contends, on the other hand, that his case was in fact pending in September 1984 since his Sec. 22 motion had yet to be acted upon. 16 McDonald relies principally on Kellis, Overman, Topping and Copper v. Director, OWCP, 17 BRBS 109 (1985). In that case, appeals from the ALJ's original order and the denial of claimant's Sec. 22 motion for modification were pending concurrently. The Board consolidated the two and vacated the ALJ's decisions, directing that the cases be adjusted to conform with the 1984 Amendments on remand. Likewise, in Osmundsen v. Todd Pacific Shipyard, 755 F.2d 730 (9th Cir.1985), the amendments were held to apply where the appeal from the ALJ's original Decision and Order was pending on the date of enactment. See also Ronne v. Jones Oregon Stevedoring Co., 19 BRBS 183 (1987); Yalowchuk, 17 BRBS 131 (1985). 17 However, an appeal from the ALJ's original decision and order need not have been pending on September 17, 1984 for the amendments to apply to a Sec. 22 motion. For example, in Downs v. Director, OWCP, 803 F.2d 193 (5th Cir.1986), the court held that the amendments applied to appellant's Sec. 22 motion, even though it was the only motion pending on their effective date. 4 While we are not bound by this decision, it is instructive in light of procedural similarity between Downs and the instant case. Moreover, the legislative interest in rendering justice under the Act suggests a broad interpretation of the pending claims provision. See Voris v. Eikel, 346 U.S. 328, 333, 74 S.Ct. 88, 91, 98 L.Ed. 5 (1953) (The LHWCA must be liberally construed in conformance with its purpose, and in a way which avoids harsh and incongruous results.). 18 Thus, we hold that where, as here, a Sec. 22 motion for modification of benefits was pending on the effective date of 1984 Amendments to the LHWCA, the amendments shall apply to that motion. Accordingly, we reverse the decision below and remand with instructions to recalculate appellant's benefits in accordance with the formula specified. 19 REVERSED AND REMANDED.