Document: 344 U.S. 367 73 S.Ct. 340 97 L.Ed. 395 SOUTH BUFFALO RY. CO.v.AHERN et al. No. 179. Argued Dec. 17, 1952. Decided Jan. 19, 1953. Mr. Albert R. Connelly, New York City (Messrs. Hoyt A. Moore, Joseph W. Marlow and Cravath, Swaine & City, on the brief), for appellant. Roy Wiedersum, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Gen., Wendell P. Brown, Sol. Albany, N.Y., Daniel Polansky, appellee StateWorkmen's Compensation Board. Justice CLARK delivered opinion Court. 1 Disability awards by Workmen's Board to an interstate railroad employee precipitate this attack § 113 that state's Law, McK.Consol.Laws, 67, as unconstitutionally conflicting with Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. 51 seq. While employed a switchman appellant Railway, Thomas J. Ahern in July 1944 suffered coronary occlusion result unusual physical exertion attempting 'throw stuck switch' Railway's Lackawanna, York, yards.1 On January 15, 1945, he filed claim Board, asserting disability caused injuries sustained regular course his employment. The Railway controverted solely grounds were not fact accidental, was causally related alleged.2 A referee, after hearing evidence, resolved these issues claimant's favor September 1945 awarded him compensation at rate $28 per week from date accident. denied application review affirmed referee's determination. In 1946 year following, entered two further temporary awards. self-insured employer, accordance Board's orders without appeal courts state continued biweekly payments until December 20, 1948. 3, 1949, died heart condition. At subsequent held shortly thereafter determine final award, widow, here, requested file death claim. point first time disputed jurisdiction over subject matter proceeding offered introduce proof support.3 referee rejected appellant's proffer rendered award weeks preceding Ahern's death. Over contention claimant 'in commerce' so applicability Act deprived jurisdiction, petition review.4 Appellate Division Supreme Court upheld Appeals affirmed.5 This decision highest court invoked York's Law which relevant part provides 'may be made board respect admiralty or other federal laws case claimant, employer insurance carrier waive their commerce rights remedies * *.' (Emphasis added.)6 Appellant's serious attacks constitutionality statute here applied problems important administration prompted us note probable case. 2 Collision is crux constitutional contentions. All agree injured employee, had pursued remedy, would have met 'interstate requirements Act.7 But we are told that, under Appeals' decision, may translate mere payment acceptance single interlocutory into irrevocable agreement forsake submit controversy tribunal only but whose rules liability clash uniform scheme intended Congress Act. That being so, urges, construction authorizes invade field foreclosed governing legilation. 3 We do think roved far afield. Rather than coin sweeping generalities, permitted render compensatory employees engaged if parties voluntarily agreed 'if there has been no overreaching fraud'.8 Accordingly, scrupulously traced significant factual elements case: Appellant outset represented able counsel well versed nature its liabilities toward employees; it utilized administrative machinery several hearings resulting least four separate awards; half years directions, choosing contest authority Board; sought judicial relief any save last, when employee's remedy lapsed. view facts concluded manifestly invoke 113, purely 'per missive statute,'9 thereby empowering act. And, effect, conduct estopped now flaw bargain: 'we can conceive sound reason why should urge late date.'10 4 doubt supplanting patchwork legislation nationwide system liberal remedial rules, displaces law trenching province State legislatures, example, intrude Act's perimeter destroy uniformity arbitrarily presuming renunciation confers, compelling elect between alternative plan. Erie Co. v. Winfield, 1917, 244 170, 37 556, 61 1057. Appeals, however, manifested meticulous care avoid collision; construed legislative authorization, permitting effectuate private agreements compromising resort impartial local umpire—'that all section purports accomplish.'11 difference coercion permission decisive; jurisdictional grant, confined, does transgress. 5 To sure, peculiarities gnaw rooted legislation. American Express Levee, 1923, 263 21, 44 11, 12, 68 140; Davis Wechsler, 22, 24, 13, 14, 143. Untainted fraud overreaching, full fair compromises FELA claims policy Callen Pennsylvania Co., 1948, 332 625, 296, 92 242. validity such agreement, raises question law. Dice Akron, C. Y.R. 1952, 342 359, 72 312; cf. Garrett Moore-McCormack 1942, 317 239, 63 246, 87 239.12 mindful benevolent aims jealously scrutinized arrangements bartering away rights. Ibid.; Boyd Grand Trunk Western 338 263, 70 26, 94 55; Duncan Thompson, 315 1, 62 422, 86 575.13 Here, whether motivated charity, dislike litigation, trial strategy, limitations barred Fully advised legal submitted viewed circumstances estopping assertion long delayed change heart. No tenet compels otherwise. 6 Affirmed. 7 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 8 judgment cannot ground merely using good offices compromise ever asserted. charged negligence. And issue tendered. , yet negligence, Moreover, appear situation where claim, contested compromised, standards used basis settlement. Cf. Bay Dredging Contracting Porter, Cir., 153 F.2d 827; Heagney Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 190 976. seems founded 'accident' rather 'negligence.' apparently because none 9 settlement litigation Central 147, 546, 1045, personal carriers regulated both inclusively exclusively room left regulation, even though injury based attributable negligence therefore compensated nevertheless afford remedy. supplanted acts established one exclusive standard carriers. see 172, 557, 10 Therefore, Supremacy Clause, power adopt different injuries. It neither force nor permit settle supplies. Since legislature constitutionally vesting I fail how they acquire through consent parties. waiver, consent, estoppel allowed enlarge domain expense overriding policy. United States Corrick, 298 435, 440, 56 829, 831, 80 1263. 11 Brandeis dissented 154, 549, Clarke concurred. Under preclude adding carrier's His follow; join overruling Winfield cases. still law; holdings my quite inconsistent what does. 4. 33, 37. 'Notice Industrial Commissioner Claim Will Be Controverted,' additionally reserved 'the right controvert reasons later appear.' 33. attached significance reservation. 88—91. found, part, 'by effect thereof deceased pleading defense Employer's Act.' 5. 303 N.Y. 545, 104 N.E.2d 898, affirming 1950, 277 App.Div. 1067, 100 N.Y.S.2d 639. 'The provisions chapter shall apply employers intrastate, also foreign commerce, whom rule method congress States, extent mutual connection intrastate work clearly separable distinguishable provided according remedies, fund assume chapter.' McKinney's Laws, 113. 'Any carrier, duties furtherance commerce; shall, way directly closely substantially, affect above set forth purposes chapter, considered entitled benefits U.S.C. 51, 51. page 555, 904. 903. 564, 909. 12 See 1951, 976, 978; Ricketts 1946, 757, 759, 164 A.L.R. 387. need decide systematic solicitation run afoul contract, rule, device whatsoever, purpose intent enable common exempt itself created void 55, 55. 13 Purvis 198 631.

Category: 9