Document: 449 U.S. 268 101 S.Ct. 509 66 L.Ed.2d 446 POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, Petitioner,v.DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT LABOR et al. No. 79-816. Argued Oct. 8, 1980. Decided Dec. 15, Syllabus Under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, compensation for a permanent partial disability must be determined in one of two ways. First, if injury is kind specifically identified schedule set forth §§ 8(c)(1)-(20) injured employee entitled to receive two-thirds his average weekly wages specific number weeks, regardless whether earning capacity has been impaired. Second, "all other cases," § 8(c)(21) authorizes equal difference between employee's preinjury postinjury wage-earning capacity, during period disability. Respondent (an covered by Act) course employment suffered loss use left leg, an specified statutory schedule. But Administrative Law Judge, rather than awarding him under schedule, allowed larger recovery 8(c)(21), Benefits Review Board affirmed. The Court Appeals also affirmed, concluding that cases" language provided "remedial ALTERNATIVE" MEASURE cases which scheduled benefits failed adequately compensate diminution capabilities. Held: limited Pp. 273-284. (a) There nothing Act itself support view reference was intended authorize alternative method computing certain already 273-274. (b) Act's legislative history entirely consistent with conclusion it mean what says. 275-276. (c) weight judicial authority supports literal reading Act. 276-280. (d) It not correct interpret as guaranteeing completely adequate remedy all disabilities, but rather, like most workmen's legislation, represents compromise competing interests disabled laborers their employers. fixed exclusive employees' interest receiving prompt industrial injuries well employers' having contingent liabilities precisely early possible. 280-284. 196 U.S.App.D.C. 417, 606 F.2d 1324, reversed. Richard W. Turner, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Elinor H. Stillman, respondent Director, Office Programs. Leslie Scherr, Terry M. Cross, Jr. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 (LHWCA), 44 Stat. (part 2) 1424, amended, 33 U.S.C. 901-950 (1976 ed. Supp. III), 908(c)(1)-(20), actually cases, 908(c)(21), disability.1 question this case permanently partially employee, may elect measured actual impairment caused injury. Although Congress could surely such election, yet done so. We therefore hold Cross' 2 Cross employed Potomac Electric Power Co. (Pepco) cable splicer-a job requires strength agility. In 1974, he earned total $21,959.38, including overtime pay $8,543.30. December year, knee employment, thereby suffering leg. physical described 5 20% resulting apparently excess 40%.2 retained job, able perform strenuous duties required splicer received no qualified increases. 3 Because worked District Columbia, LHWCA.3 undisputed leg "permanent disability" within meaning 8(c) Act; unquestioned right award fraction earnings 288 weeks.4 His claim, however, amount before present multiplied weeks continues.5 4 Judge recovery. He held accept authorized 8(c)(2) (19) instead recover based on formula cases." Using formula, found amounted approximately $130 per week, ordered Pepco each week remainder working life. v. Co., 7 BRBS 10 (1977). United States Columbia Circuit 1324 (1979). Recognizing "must construed light its humanitarian objectives," noting "recent trend law away from idea exclusivity benefits," court concluded alternative" measure "the fail [wage-earning] capabilities."6 While expressing sympathy result reached majority, judge dissented.7 6 * plainly character determines compensation. Section 8 identifies four different categories separately prescribes each.8 category, provides covers 20 injuries. then adds additional subparagraph, applies any included list subparagraph indicating provide preceding subparagraphs; quite contrary, terms, (21) applicable "In cases."9 noteworthy direction precedes disabilities mandates prescribed "shall paid follows."10 are free read though granted election. Nor we subsequent words they foregoing" well; word "other" forecloses reading. sum, find statute computation II 9 contains consideration precise us,11 aspect somewhat enlightening. relevant enacted 1927.12 patterned after similar "scheduled benefits" provision New York Workmen's 1922.13 A few years enactment LHWCA, confronted same construction now presented us federal statute. considered so clear face little discussion issue necessary: "Obviously, phrase 'in cases' signifies provisions paragraph shall apply only where confined member or members." Sokolowski Bank America, 261 N.Y. 57, 62, 184 N.E. 492, 494 (1933). 11 Nothing original Federal amendments14 indicates did intend plain substantially identical ancestor. III 12 13 During first half century administration tribunals consistently exclusive. explicitly arise until 1964, prior time evidence irrelevant falling provisions.15 Williams Donovan, 234 F.Supp. 135 (ED La.), aff'd, 367 825 (CA5 1966), cert. denied, 386 977, 87 1174, 18 139 (1967), address form Act" indicated available F.Supp., at 139. This went unchallenged next decade.16 14 1975 announced dissatisfaction claimants proceed either 8(c)(21).17 since applied series decisions instant member.18 divided decision accepting construction. notion LHWCA might says thus relatively recent development surfacing almost 50 enactment. 1975, although abundant, were 15 decisional scarce, state-law not. lower cited, respondents rely upon benefits." U.S.App.D.C., 421, F.2d, 1328.19 "trend" unquestionably exists, neither uniform nor presenting issues comparable us.20 More importantly, proper understanding role reveals Our task ascertain congressional intent underlying benefit 1927; incorporate into those developments consider sound matter policy. attempting over ago, once "dominate[d] field" more enlightening motivated Congresses amend statute.21 dominant IV 16 Respondents suggest reasons why settled erroneous. They submit does fulfill fundamental remedial purpose produce anomalous results probably intend. submission accurate; second, theoretically correct, insufficient force overcome itself. 17 correctly observe require liberally order effectuate purposes.22 accordingly argue should interpreted manner complete employee. Implicit argument, assumption sole workers inaccuracy implicit undercuts validity respondents' argument. indeed employees who job. imposes liability without fault precludes assertion various common-law defenses had frequently resulted denial laborers. providing work-related harms, statutes do purport wage earner's economic loss.23 On employers definite limits potential would have tort actions damages. None full earnings; even favored earnings. disabilities. Rather, employers.24 19 true, requiring resort incongruous results. Unless disability, dependent proving capacity; contrast, effect particular maintain level income, paid. Conversely, seriously undercompensate some Cross.25 seems particularly unfair when compared suffers unscheduled equivalent capacity. Indeed, possible serious temporary exceed character.26 As observed past, lightly assumed Baltimore & Phila. Steamboat Norton, 284 408, 412-413, 52 187, 188, 76 L.Ed. 366 (1932). "compelling language" produces incongruities, courts avoid them rewriting ignoring language. Id., 413, S.Ct., 188. Such compelling case. See Part I, supra. fact leads seemingly unjust give judges license disregard it.27 21 If anomalies occur frequency day-to-day persuasive justification review obviously policy re-examine every century.28 re-examination extent importance hypothetical fairly evaluated. proceeding, concern less plight individual litigant us. Nonetheless, basis approving authorized. judgment 22 Reversed. 23 BLACKMUN, dissenting. 24 dissent persuasively (but, me, convincingly) that, reach result, see ante, 282-284, favor incongruity concededly exist. said because just wrote way. Now ruled, fortunately can situation will go about doing it. 25 That, course, help comfort here, who, concedes, 283, greater enduring. That make much sense me and, while I realize inequities occasionally exist area arbitrary lines drawn somewhere, cannot believe result. 26 Soon 901-950, became 1927, unanimously principles resolving questions it: 27 "The us, legislation many States, payments relief dependents sustain personal deaths occurring work, attributable laws operate relieve persons misfortunes part burden distribute industries mediately served them. deemed public furtherance possible, harsh results." 414, 189, 28 Voris Eikel, 346 328, 333, 74 88, 91, 98 (1953). 29 Today's departs these reaching, avoiding, result.1 reduce $130.13 rest To injury, awarded lost earnings-$86.76 $4,500 year-for long continues work. Court's decision, $12,800,2 three years' Board. accepts petitioner's argument 5% $3,200, year's compensation.3 Of really powerless change believe, warrants interpretation adopts. 30 starting point, statute's definition "disability." 2(10) 902(10), defines "disability" "incapacity earn employment." used therefore, concept, medical one. An compensable unless power. 31 Not surprisingly, then, depends due worker unable wages, receives wages. 908(a). One remains disabled. 908(b). payable continues, longer five years. 908(e). 32 treatment against background. notes, 908(c) subsections establishing worker's listed. Subsection "[i]n class thereafter. prefers construe "other listed (1) (20) compensating permanently, partially, includes wish offered (20), elects bear andhis afterwards. farmore harmony overall House Committee explained workers' "has come universally recognized necessity social justice employer employee," "compensation illness inability pursue usual employment. . ." (Emphasis added.) H.R.Rep.No.1767, 69th Cong., 2d Sess., 19-20 (1927).4 falls far short goal. 34 afford "without delay expense action entails." 20. inclusion serves goal easily ascertainable person injuries.5 indication history, regarded important relief, especially case, one, lose 35 statesthat "weight authority" view, cite single point,6 namely, La.1964), (1967).7 contrasts Board,8 agency established administer LHWCA. 492 (1933), scant today's decision. decided enacted, uncertain guide, best, passed six earlier. 36 Thus, LHWCA9 mandated, my allow claimant seeking choose 908(c)(21). think follow (1932), adopt liberal amazingly approved 37 affirm Appeals. 908, provides, part, follows: "Compensation "(c) Permanent disability: quality 662/3 centum addition accordance subdivision (e) section, respectively, "(1) Arm lost, hundred twelve weeks' "(2) Leg eighty-eight "(3) Hand forty-four "(4) Foot "(5) Eye sixty "(18) Total use: member. "(19) Partial proportionate "(20) Disfigurement: Proper equitable $3,500 disfigurement face, head, neck normally exposed areas likely handicap securing maintaining "(21) Other cases: thereafter otherwise, continuance subject reconsideration degree deputy commissioner own motion application party interest." $12,086.48, contrast 1974 $21,959.38. D.C.Code 36-501 36-504 (1973 V-1978), adopts Columbia. Cardillo Liberty Mutual Ins. 330 469, 471, 67 801, 803, 91 1028 (1947). (1973), provides: chapter title 33, U.S.Code, amendments hereafter made thereto, respect death carrying irrespective place occurs; except applying term 'employer' 'employee' person." (18), weeks. member, 8(c)(19) calculated whatever necessary determine testimony derived quoted n. 1, noted "wage-earning capacity" necessarily 8(h) 908(h), (c)(21) section reasonably represent capacity: Provided, may, justice, fix reasonable, regard nature impairment, factors circumstances affect condition, naturally extend future." 420-421, 1327-1328. Before analyzing detail, MacKinnon wrote: "Nothing permits whose out circumvent Congress' conclusive presumptions showing benefit. majority holds despite fifty-two year old regime essentially unaltered scheme ever adopted contrary approach. am unsympathetic majority's holding achieves, province branch weigh decide ought obtain." 422-423, 1329-1330. total, remedies disability-essentially disability-are 908(a) (b). disability-two-thirds up maximum years-is 8(e), appear twice (21). (emphasis supplied). MacKinnon's dissenting reviewed detail; discovered answer question, 425, 1332, conclusions drawn, supported mutually 425-429, 1332-1336. Mar. 4, 901 seq. 1922 N.Y.Laws, ch. 615, 15(3). extensive revision 1914, 1914 41. covering initially appeared Laws, 41, retained, slightly revised form, 1922. selected model best time. H.R.Rep.No.1190, 1st (1926). 1972, pass amendment permitted both expiration period. S. 2318, 7, 92d Sess. (1971), reprinted Amendments 1972: Hearings Subcommittee Labor Senate Public Welfare, (1972); H.R. 12006, 15023, (1972), Act: Select Education Labor, 27, 38 (1972). relies heavily rejection proposed position exclusive, marginal relevance cumulative, alternative, remedies. Pepco's reliance 1949 1966 Employees (FECA), 8101 seq., similarly misplaced. These amendments, authorizing cumulative FECA, shed intention 14, 1949, 691, 104, 63 855; Sept. 6, 1966, Pub.L. 89-554, 80 536. See, e. g., Travelers Insurance Cardillo, 225 137, 143-144 (CA2), 350 913, 196, 100 800 (1955). noted, principle response attempts defeat claim ground Prior attempted secure arose significantly context, another 1964 Flamm Hughes, 329 378, 380, suggests Second Mason Old Dominion Stevedoring Corp., 357, 363-365 (1975). Mason, rejected American Jones, 138 269, 426 1263 (1970), below relied. 1328. Jones merely rise 8(a) facts establish prevents engaging qualified. 271-272, 1265-1266. which, 8(a), directs facts." totally becomes irrelevant. very 8(c)(21). Fifth recently distinction way inconsistent, former concerns latter Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. Dugger, 587 197, 198 Collins Todd Shipyards 1015 (1979); Brandt Avondale 698 (1978); Dugger Inc., 552 Richardson Perna Cantrell, 588 (1977); Longo Universal Terminal 357 decisions, Longo, involved partial, disability; comments pertaining dicta. 17, policymaking agency; special deference courts. Hastings Earth Satellite 202 85, 94, 628 94 (1980), 905, 281, 137; Tri-State Terminals, Jesse, 596 752, 757, (CA7 1979). Board's examination issue, supra, Chairman Smith vigorously dissented BRBS, 1027-1036. acknowledged inequitable results, construction: ambiguous indefinite. needs strained contained clearly awards Sections 8(c)(1) through conditions making awards. line demarcation 'all disability." 1027. following passage leading treatise law: " 'Although difficult speak terms rule significant differences background, doctrine exclusiveness allowances dominate field. there developed strong opposite now, justification, say field dominated smaller percentage larger, body whole.' 214-215, 1328-1329, quoting A. Larson, 58.20, pp. 10-212 10-214 (1976) (footnotes omitted). Professor Larson developed, least involving extending parts body. id., 10-196 10-206, 10-220. concerned here solely body, With appears jurisdictions continue E. Blair, Reference Guide 11:07, p. 11-24 (1974); Schneider, 2322(a), 562-565 (Perm. 1957). Larson's exclusivity, perhaps nonetheless "many jurisdictions." 58.00, 10-164; 10-206 10-212; 58.13, 10-174. below, "at field." 10-212, 19, Reed Yaka, 373 410, 415, 83 1349, 1353, 448 (1963); (1953); attempt entire loss. classes expressly designated respect, typical statutes. supra 2.50, 11; Small, General Structure Applicable Employee Injury Death, Vand.L.Rev. 1021, 1027-1028 (1963). recognized: "Workmen's acts quid pro quo Employers relinquish legal rights affords so, turn, employees. fellow servant risk. assured hospital care subsistence convalescence return event death, fault, workman Employees, hand, ordinarily suit damages certainty recompense injuries." Norris, Maritime Personal Injuries 55, 102 (3d 1975). 20, 1:00, 1-1 1-2; Prosser, Torts 531-532 (4th 1971). previously concept central "A prime residents practical expeditious accidents determinate liability." U.S., 476, 806. $3,200 $12,800, depending ultimate $86.76 life, according counsel $100,000. Brief Petitioner 9; Tr. Oral Arg. 10, 31, 34, 36. dramatic disparity exceptional duration, $12,800. 8(e) $22,400 assuming demonstrated 5-year THE CHIEF JUSTICE, writing Court, stated langauge led result: "Our appraisal wisdom unwisdom consciously put aside process interpreting Once discerned constitutionality determined, comes end." TVA Hill, 437 153, 194, 2279, 2302, 57 117 (1978). presents complex troublesome problems generally Burton, Disabilities Compensation, 53 J.Urb.L. 853 (1976). appropriately solved legislative, judicial, action. amended minor respects enactment, 1927. rejects Board, administers ruled 908(c)(1) (1975); Cf. (1970); (1978), 197 1979); (1975) (employee tocompensation schedule). LawJudge $332.48. loses 908(c)(2). 908(c)(19). Therefore, theschedule $332.48 x 2/3 = $12,767.23. $3,191.81. Committee's Report, bill Cong.Rec.10614 Compare S.Rep.No.836, 81st (1949),discussing benefits, con- tained Act(FECA): "Under act percent sustained loss, absence members functions principal difficulties, extreme difficulty determining objectively diminishes employee'swage-earning capacity." occasion overcompensate claimant. For example, lawyer arm accident work suffer ability, eligible 28, 1328, extent, exception deliberately chose make. addressing second "principal difficulties" Report concluded: function always cause proportional reduction apparent event, notwithstanding severe him, impairment. understandable losses expect indemnity loss." 17. relying 275, silent concerning absolute certainty, plausible adopting FECA cited distinguishable. 378 (CA2 1964), unconstitutional injuries, others. plaintiff, dissatisfied obtained hoped obtain prove acknowledges 137 (1955), proof seeks Ante, 277, n.15. curiam affirming discuss issue. inadequate peculiarities ($86 years), large allows "It payment lesser lesser. justify Act." creates disincentive forthe otherwise compensated rule. 277-278, takes low-paying makes amount, new learn quickly advantage 365; at701-702.

Category: 7