Document: 440 U.S. 29 99 S.Ct. 903 59 L.Ed.2d 122 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT LABOR, Petitioner,v.Genevieve O. RASMUSSEN et al. GEO CONTROL, INCORPORATED and New Hampshire Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Genevieve Nos. 77-1465, 77-1491. Argued Nov. 28, 1978. Decided Feb. 21, 1979. Syllabus The Longshoremen's Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (Act) Amendments of 1972, to combat inflation, replaced the Act's $70 maximum limitation on weekly disability benefits with a four-step scheme tied specified percentages "applicable national average wage" determined annually by Secretary Labor. § 6(b)(1). At same time, death surviving spouses children were increased, respectively, from 35% 50% 15% 16 2/3% deceased's wages. Total still limited 66 wages, but former specific dollar minimum limitations wages provision dealing only applicable wage. Thus, as amended, 9(e) provides that "(i)n computing deceased shall be considered have been not less than wage prescribed in section 6(b) total exceed deceased." Respondents, widow son covered employee, claimed combined ($532 per week) equal employer, its insurance carrier, Director Department Labor's Office Programs (petitioners) contended 6(b)(1)'s payments (then $167 week), was meant apply well Congress's failure place when it amended inadvertent. An administrative decision respondents' favor affirmed Court Appeals. Held: Death payable under are subject placed This conclusion is supported both language legislative history 1972 Amendments. Pp. 35-47. (a) That omission inadvertent disproved Amendments, especially pertinent Committee Reports, which clearly reflect Committees' understanding being eliminated provisions substituted their place. 37-41. (b) Section 6(d), "determinations" 6 "with respect period" employees currently receiving or survivors during such period, does render contained 6(b)(1) Congress' use word 6(d) verb form elsewhere strongly suggests intended term refer annual determination 6(b)(3) wage, mathematical computation benefit maximums contemplated view confirmed 6(d)'s history. 41-44. (c) Since show ceiling intentional, this must reject petitioners' suggested interpretation Act. 45-47. 567 F.2d 1385, affirmed. Kent L. Jones, Washington, D.C., for petitioner No. pro hac vice, special leave Court. Albert H. Sennett, San Francisco, Cal., petitioners James Buckley Ostmann, respondents cases. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion 1 In May 1973 William Rasmussen employed hydrologist Geo Control, Inc., contract United States perform work South Vietnam. fatally injured course his employment vehicle he riding blown up land mine. His within coverage Defense Base 42 U.S.C. 1651 seq., incorporates Act, 44 Stat. 1424, 33 901 seq. (Act). It undisputed Rasmussen's son,1 here, entitled 9 909; issue dividing parties Courts Appeals2 whether limits expressly persuade us they not. 2 * Prior passage 86 1251, limitations. Former no more week $18 week. 9(b) 66SCAS1651;% "average wages," "considered $105 nor $27 . ." 909(e) (1970 ed.). Accordingly, benefits, like could $18.3 established 1961, gradually lost real value inflation exacted toll,4 Congress moved give workers added protection. 3 basic formula determining compensation permanent disability—66 employee's left unchanged however, an entirely new wage." part: 4 "[C]ompensation following 5 "(A) 125 centum $167, whichever greater, period ending September 30, 1973. "(B) 150 beginning October 7 1, 1973, 1974. 8 "(C) 175 1974, 1975. 10 "(D) 200 1975." 11 906(b)(1). 12 906(b)(3). Senate Labor Public Welfare estimated approximately 90% disabled would receive full 662/3% S.Rep.No.92-1125, p. (1972), Legislative History (Committee Print compiled Subcommittee Labor), 67 (1972) (hereinafter Leg.Hist.). phase-in section's 125% 200% designed ease impact employers increase payments, expected at least double most workers. Ibid. 13 increased Labor% survivors, 66s t% 909(b). deleted limitation, now provides: 14 "In 909(e). 15 Pursuant 9, $532 week, two-thirds $798. (OWCP), Act—initially $396.50 week5—apply manner disability.6 dispute submitted Administrative Law Judge, who sustained position. Petitioners appealed adverse ruling Benefits Review Board, convinced Board "elimination done consciously intentionally" "failure substitute deliberate action." App. Pet. Cert. pp. 22A-23A. Board's order directly Appeals Ninth Circuit. 921(c). affirmed, largely adopting reasoning Board. We granted certiorari resolve conflict among issue,7 436 955, 98 3068, 57 1120 (1978), we affirm judgment II Petitioners' case incorporating into rests part made "shall 906(d). subsection's references "survivors" "death benefits" demonstrate, according petitioners, Anticipating obvious question—why did Congress, either reference 6(b)(1), put back benefits—the OWCP concedes "[u]ndeniably, stipulate benefits," merely "overlooked" fact amending provisions. Brief Petitioner 28-29. 17 One need state argument recognize flaws. They suggest, one hand, forgot 9(e), although had fixed since initial 1927.8 On other urge remembered question while considering 6, rather incorporate decided limit compensation. 18 logic position further weakened structure itself, if chosen limiting simple matter add words "and death" after "disability" opening sentence Nor contention deal collective presence mind include 9(e). maintains path follow, admittedly "tortuous," ultimately leads "what may assumed congressional intent avoid disparate treatment" beneficiaries. 11, 32. agree tortuous, believe refuted plain A. 19 unambiguous: calculated can hence governed 20 1971 two pairs identical bills introduced 92d House Education S. 525 H.R. 3505 retained benefits.9 contrast, 2318 12006, formed nucleus proposed elimination ceilings benefits.10 21 difference treatment between competing hardly gone unnoticed. Senator Eagleton opened hearings before Welfare, summarizing follows: 22 "S. 2318, I cosponsored Williams, eliminate payment 23 "The second bill, 525, late Prouty request administration, also retaining limitation." Hearings Cong., 2d Sess., Hearings). 24 Supporters measures vigorously debated virtues vices payments.11 12006 reported respective Committees enacted 1972.12 Reports accompanying place.13 light evidence intent, find impossible conclude absence result inadvertence. B 25 plainly restricted "compensation disability." argue, through 6(d). Close examination wording used latter persuades otherwise. 26 "Determinations subsection those newly awarded period." 27 there "this subsection" error. agree, conclude, should read section."14 thus becomes what "determinations 28 operative subsection, "period," appear together Paragraph (3) "As soon practicable June 30 each year, any event prior determine three consecutive calendar quarters 30. Such year next year. paragraph [October 27, 1972]." 906(b)(3) (Emphasis added.) 31 Elsewhere 906(b)(1); see 906(b)(2). careful "determination" provision's section-by-section analysis stated: 32 "Subsection (d) states determinations begin first time Leg.Hist. 80.15 Because govern "survivors surprising. increases reflected corresponding benefits.16 See S.Rep.No.921125, supra, 5-6, 67-68. benefits. C 34 Finally, that, notwithstanding, "premium death." cannot do dispute, precisely situations survived spouse children.17 discourage feigned disability, consideration wholly inapplicable inconceivable financial needs worker's family upon death. typical worker, though longer physically able ply trade, might contribute family's livelihood assuming variety domestic responsibilities, releasing force. circumstances rob economic asset. 35 entreat interpret "to absurd discriminatory consequence." Even agreed characterization required decline invitation, our convinces intentional. has down pen, neither rewrite call cancel half Line." Our task said; so doing, 36 Affirmed. 37 POWELL took these until 18th birthday, or, qualifies student, 23d birthday. §§ 902(14), (18), Compare 1385 (case below), Director, Comp. O'Keefe, 545 337 (CA3 1976), Boughman, 178 U.S.App.D.C. 132, 210 (1976). Under her husband's additional child, without children, nominally actually $105. A aggregate percentage (662/3), award shares widows 50 162/3, 662/3 retained. According reports, private, nonagricultural $135 longshoremen averaged over $200 some ports. H.R.Rep.No.92-1441, 207 Leg.Hist.); Leg.Hist., 66, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4698. precluded cases constituted little 30% 5, 67. along levels National Average Effective Date Weekly Wage Maximum 11/26/72 $131.80 $167.00 10/1/73 140.36 210.54 10/1/74 149.14 261.00 10/1/75 159.19 318.38 10/1/76 171.27 342.54 10/1/77 183.61 367.22 10/1/78* 198.25 396.50 Based preliminary figures. initially litigated Deputy Commissioner Fifteenth District ruled disability. appeal vacated ground lacked authority issue. n. 2, supra. original provided $25 Mar. 4, 1927, 6(b), 1426. $37.50 9(c), 1430. $25. Subsequent amendments raised levels, disturb relationship maximums. 24, 1948, ch. 623, 3, 62 602; July 26, 1956, 735, 70 654, 655; 14, Pub.L. 87-87, 75 203. 1st 4(a), 8(c) (1971), 395, 399; 3505, 417, 421. 4(a) "Section " 'Compensation $119 $35 ..' read: $178.50, $52.50, 10(b) 10; 146, 149-150. As originally introduced, $80 Original similar benefits: '(b) $54 week: Provided, That, computed wages.' Witnesses representing generally removal payments. Witness Thomas W. Gleason, President International Association, AFL-CIO, testified: "We support enactment effective proposal accomplish long overdue longshoremen. First foremost, bill artificial totally unrealistic restrictions amounts. enable awards, realistically loss earnings suffered employees. administration raise levels. $70.00 $119.00 represents substantial improvement, already obsolete. adopt level grounded built-in obsolescence. Far equitable approach manifested 2318." 156-158. id., 63 (testimony Howard McGuigan, Representative, AFL-CIO), 133 Patrick Tobin, Washington Warehousemen's Union), 700 Frank E. Fitzsimmons, General President, Brotherhood Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen Helpers America). Not surprisingly, representatives opposed Edward D. Vickery, Maritime Committee, stating: "[W]e respectfully submit advisable remove monetary therefore recommend regard." 334. Ralph Hartman, assistant manager Safety Workmen's Division Bethlehem Steel Corporation, compromise position: endorse concepts propose innovations variations consider urgent demanding, yet all concerned. "Of major importance industry proposals amend act increasing rate eliminating present $70. increased. However, leaves limitation. proposal, suggest your predicated shipbuilding ship repair industry, percent 10, industry." Id., 171-172. debate raging about it, unwittingly omitted 9(b). passed 1972. 118 Cong.Rec. 30670, 30674. 36376, 36389, returned Senate, concurred version. 36265, 36274 (1972). Precisely expressed Report accompanied 12006: amends set out persent [sic] law amendment except actual 225, 4716. Both discussing bills, noting "subject [deceased's] wages" "[a] 68; 210, 4701. apparently refers 1252, 6(b)-(d) F.2d, 344; U.S.App.D.C., 137, 215. heavy reliance 2318: "To extent permanment [sic ] phase in, moves percent." indeed gradual applies quoted statement, followed immediately conflicting statement. apparent effect states: requires redetermination will allow appropriate Act." S.Rep.No. 92-1125, 67-68; 17, infra. statement consistent reading earlier indication "it overwhelmingly outweighed contrary purport whole." 1388 5. maintain interpreting duplicative 10(f). Added 10(f) "Effective arising injuries 1972], (if any) exceeds determined, preceding 1." makes clear death, adjusted upward rises. Although gives incremental beneficiaries cases, including unaffected statutory maximum, incidental partially lift and, extent, floor overlap substantially, duplicative. particular type received years. If employee died look "applicable" purposes injury occurred, died. For example, suppose worker permanently 1. Suppose $90 $100. 8(a) $60 seek (662/3% $90), significantly $50 (50% $100) 6(b)(2). leaving amounting Assuming 5% arise higher Reference reveals having "newly awarded" calculate Further, indicates fully aware similarities discussion "maximum amounts," upgrading future years (Section bill)." 5-6 67-68 (emphasis added). 908(a), 906(b)(2), greater. dies, 100% lesser. whose greater demonstrated examples: "If assume $100, "1. Disability "Under [33 U.S.C.] 908(a) normally 2/3 $40. 906(b)(2) $50. situation "2. 909(b), if, widower amount deceased, where average, here take $66.66. then "Making assumptions, calculations chart indicates: Employee's Nat'l. Avg. $100 $66.66 100 66.66 66.00 50.00 60 60.00 51 51.00 50.00"

Category: 7