Opinion ID: 3010705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Manifestation Requirement

Text: The manifestation requirement arose because of the public policy against discrimination that has been read into the Act since Lawson. Courts have reasoned that an employer can not discriminate if it does not know of a preexisting injury. Therefore, courts have required that the pre-existing injury be manifest in order to afford the employer relief from the special fund. However, courts were aware that at least two further problems could exasperate rather than ameliorate the problem that the law was trying to remedy. First, proving such knowledge is very difficult. Accordingly, courts credited the employer with knowledge of a preexisting condition which could have been discovered in an employee's medical records even if the employer did not actually know. _________________________________________________________________ Compensation Programs, 31 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1994); others hold that the purpose is encouraging maritime employers to hire disabled persons. See Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Harris, 934 F.2d 548, 552 (4th Cir. 1991); Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 913 F.2d 1426, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990). Still others refer to both preventing discrimination and encouraging employers to hire disabled persons. See American Bridge Div., U.S. Steel Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 679 F.2d 81, 82 n.3 (5th Cir. 1982). 12 [s]trong policy considerations dictate that only those employers who hire the handicapped with knowledge of their disabilities qualify for limited liability. . . . In view of the difficulty of proving actual knowledge . . . the test is ordinarily an objective one. Conditions that are latent rather than manifest to a prospective employer do not qualify as S 8(f) disabilities. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation, 542 F.2d 602, 608 (3d Cir. 1976). Allowing an employer to establish manifestation by way of constructive knowledge also addressed the concern that the policy of protecting employees would result in employers subjecting certain employees to exacting physical examinations for fear of not learning of a preexisting condition and becoming ineligible for section 8(f) relief. It is the availability of knowledge, rather than actual knowledge of the condition, that is relevant to determining manifestation. See Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp., 575 F.2d at 456-57; cf. American Mut. Ins. Co. Of Boston v. Jones, 426 F.2d 1263 (D.C.Cir. 1970). Thus, an employer who demonstrates that it could readily have discovered the disability by looking at the employee's medical records is entitled to S 8(f) relief. Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp., 575 F.2d at 457. See, e.g., Bunge Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation, 951 F.2d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 1991) (An employer need not have actual knowledge of an employee's condition. If the condition is readily discoverable from the employee's medical record in the possession of the employer, knowledge of the condition is imputed to the employer.). Against this background, the vast majority of courts of appeals that have addressed the issue have agreed that an employee's disability must be manifest to the employer before the employer can seek relief from the special fund.8 The manifestation requirement is _________________________________________________________________ 8. See C.G. Willis, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 31 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1994); Sealand Terminals, Inc. v. Gasparic, 7 F.3d 321, 323-24 (2nd Cir. 1993); Two R Drilling Co., Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 894 F.2d 748, 750 (5th Cir. 1990); Lambert's Point Docks, Inc. v. Harris, 718 F.2d 644, 648 (4th Cir. 1983); Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Cargill, Inc., 709 F.2d 616, 619 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); General 13 now widely accepted and was incorporated into the 1984 amendments to the LHWCA through regulations promulgated under that Act. See 20 C.F.R.S 702.321(a) (1988).9 Here, the Director denied Sun Ship's S 8(f) application because no evidence [was] submitted to show that [Ehrentraut] had a manifest pre-existing permanent disability prior to his retirement from work in 1981. . . . See Joint Appendix at 52; ALJ Op. at 2. However, Sun Ship raises an interesting issue of first impression in this circuit. It argues that the 1984 amendments to the LHWCA eliminated the manifestation requirement where, as here, the preexisting injury does not become manifest until after the employee retires. The ALJ accepted this argument and reversed the ruling of the Director. We are convinced that Section 8(f) should be read literally in considering disability from post-retirement occupational diseases. Only in this way can Congress' intent in passing the 1984 amendments be carried out. To establish entitlement to relief from the special fund for a post-retirement occupational disease, therefore, the employer need only show that there is an existing permanent partial disability combined with the same and contributed to the resulting permanent total disability. In such cases the manifestation requirement will not be applied. ALJ Op. at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). _________________________________________________________________ Dynamics Corp. v. Sacchetti, 681 F.2d 37, 39-40 (1st Cir. 1982); Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Brandt Airflex Corp., 645 F.2d 1053, 1058 (D.C.Cir. 1981); Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp., 575 F.2d at 456; Duluth, M. & I. R. Ry. Co. v. United States Dep't Of Labor, 553 F.2d 1144, 1151 (8th Cir. 1977). But see American Ship Bldg. Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 865 F.2d 727, 731-32 (6th Cir. 1989) (expressly declining to incorporate manifest requirement for S 8(f) relief). 9. The regulations require that the applicant forS 8(f) limitation of liability must file an application with the district director containing (iii) the basis for the assertion that the pre-existing condition relied upon was manifest in the employer. . . . 20 C.F.R. S 702.321(a)(1). 14 Accordingly, we must determine what effect, if any, those amendments had on the operation of the manifestation requirement.