Opinion ID: 445029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standing to appeal the applicability of the special fund

Text: 14 The petitioner contends that, because section 8(f) deprives her of the opportunity to obtain a lump sum settlement, she has standing to contest the applicability of the special fund to this case. 15 Hyman responds that petitioner lacks standing because nothing in the LHWCA permits the settlement of a death claim under section 8(i)(A) and because she has no interest in the source of her benefits. We hold that Mrs. Henry does not have standing to appeal the applicability of section 8(f). 15 The Board's precedents unequivocally establish that a claimant has no interest in the source of compensation, and we agree. 16 Moreover, the Board has considered and rejected the contention that, because a claimant is deprived of the opportunity to commute benefits to a lump sum settlement, the claimant has an interest sufficient to confer standing when the special fund applies. The Board has characterized this argument as a chimera and stated that: 16 Even if it is true that special fund benefits cannot be commuted, a proposition for which claimant cites no authority and for which we can find none, this would have no bearing on the proper allocation of liability between employers and the special fund. We will not open section 8(f) deliberations to claimants with such totally insignificant grounds for asserting standing. 17 Sims v. Singleton Electric Co., 9 B.R.B.S. 1068, 1072 (1978). 18 Furthermore, in a recent case, in which the Ninth Circuit considered inter alia the question whether the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs has standing to contest the applicability of section 8(f), the court observed: 19 The Director is the only party who has a real interest in protecting the financial integrity of the fund; consequently, the ability to petition for review of a Board decision protects the fund against unnecessary payments. 20 Director, OWCP v. Cargill, Inc., 718 F.2d 886 (9th Cir.1983) (emphasis added). 17 21 We can find no fault with the foregoing precedent. Accordingly, we uphold the decision denying petitioner's claim of standing under section 8(f). 22