Opinion ID: 3030609
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Matulic Is Good Law

Text: General Construction’s primary arguments for overruling Matulic are as follows: (1) Matulic permits and promotes overcompensation of claimants, a result contrary to the plain language of the LHWCA; (2) the 75% bright line drawn in Matulic creates absurd results; (3) Matulic is inconsistent with the law in other circuits and with the reasoning in relevant Supreme Court precedent. 10 We based this conclusion in part on our observation in an earlier case that “the point at which the disparity between the claimant’s actual days worked and the [potential days worked] becomes unreasonable or unfair[, triggering application of § 10(c),] is ‘a question of line-drawing.’ ” Matulic, 154 F.3d at 1057-58 (quoting Duncanson-Harrelson Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 686 F.2d 1336, 1343 (9th Cir. 1982)). We determined in Matulic that the 75% threshold was an appropriate place to draw this line. 154 F.3d at 1057-58. 11 We further noted that § 10(c) “may not be invoked in cases in which the only significant evidence that the application of [§ 10(a)] would be unfair or unreasonable is that claimant worked more than 75% of the days in the year preceding his injury.” Matulic, 154 F.3d at 1058-59. 2420 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. v. CASTRO To begin, we note that “[w]e are bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions.” Benny v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 295 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Because none of these conditions applies, we reject General Construction’s arguments. Even if we had the capacity to overrule Matulic, however, we would reach the same conclusion. [9] In Matulic itself, we addressed concerns about whether potential overcompensation was consistent with the purposes of the LHWCA. 154 F.3d at 1057. We noted that no one in the country works every working day of every work week and that Congress must have known that some overcompensation would result from the standard work year of 260 days provided for in the LHWCA. Id. We reasoned that any inaccuracies in estimating wage-earning capacity should normally favor the worker, given the “humanitarian purposes” of the Act and our mandate to construe its provisions broadly in favor of workers. Id.12 General Construction rests virtually its entire argument that the LHWCA reflects a policy against overcompensation on the existence of § 10(c), which acknowledges the possibility that weekly wage calculations may be unfair or unreasonable in some circumstances. Given the virtual inevitability of overcompensation under § 10(a), we decline to interpret the existence of § 10(c) as a statutory bar to any application of the LHWCA resulting in arguable overcompensation. General Construction’s absurdity argument rests on the contention that a worker who has worked 75% of the statutory 12 It should also be noted that whether “overcompensation” occurs at all under Matulic is questionable. The LHWCA does not compensate for, among other things, lost pay increases or the lost value of fringe benefits. These gaps in compensation may be partly responsible for Congress’s decision to provide for calculation methods that would tend to overcompensate for time worked rather than to undercompensate. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. v. CASTRO 2421 days will have worked an average of 3.75 days per week, but under § 10(a) will receive the same compensation as a worker who worked 5 days per week. This argument would appear to attack not only the line drawn in Matulic but also the drawing of a line at all. General Construction does not explain when such a disparity would not rise to the level of absurdity; if any disparity between actual hours worked and compensation is an absurd result, as General Construction’s argument implies, then no claimant who worked less than 100% of the statutory 260 days would be entitled to application of § 10(a). Yet the plain language of § 10(a) itself does not require this. Rather, the subdivision applies to claimants who have worked “substantially the whole of the year immediately preceding his injury.” 33 U.S.C. § 910(a) (emphasis added). “Substantially” would be meaningless if we were to follow General Construction’s suggested interpretation of § 10(a), and as a result we decline to do so. General Construction also argues that Matulic is inconsistent with the law in other circuits and with Supreme Court precedent. The only circuit opinion cited reaching a result contrary to Matulic is Strand v. Hansen Seaway Service, Inc., 614 F.2d 572 (7th Cir. 1980). But we acknowledged and rejected Strand in Matulic itself, noting “[w]e do not believe such a rigid rule [requiring use of § 10(c) where claimant had worked 84% of the days in the statutory year] is consistent with the intent or purpose of the [LHWCA].” Matulic, 154 F.2d at 1058 n.4. General Construction offers no compelling reason for us to revisit this conclusion. General Construction also cites the Supreme Court’s opinion in Director, OWCP v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994).13 But the limited, technical holding in Greenwich Col13 This opinion predates our decision in Matulic, so that General Construction’s reliance on it amounts, again, to a contention that Matulic was wrongly decided—not to an argument that intervening Supreme Court precedent requires us to reject Matulic’s rule. 2422 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. v. CASTRO lieries14 is irrelevant to the soundness of our decision in Matulic to interpret § 10(a) broadly in light of the remedial purposes of the LHWCA. See 154 F.3d at 1055, 1057. Even were we empowered to overrule Matulic, General Construction has presented no convincing reason for us to do so.