Document: 506 U.S. 153 113 S.Ct. 692 121 L.Ed.2d 619 BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION, et al., Petitionersv.DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, etc., al. No. 91-871. Argued Nov. 4, 1992. Decided Jan. 12, 1993. Syllabus * Upon learning after he retired that suffered from a work-related hearing loss, respondent Brown, former employee of petitioner Bath Iron Works Corp., filed timely claim for disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. In calculating Brown's benefits, Administrative Law Judge applied hybrid compensation systems set forth in §§ 8(c)(13) 8(c)(23) Act, Benefits Review Board affirmed. Rejecting Board's reliance on § 8(c)(23), Court Appeals held loss claims, whether by current workers or retirees, must be compensated pursuant to 8(c)(13). Under section, claimant who has disabling injury kind specifically identified schedule, including is entitled certain regardless his earning capacity had actually been impaired. contrast, Courts Fifth Eleventh Circuits have retiree's occupational should 8(c)(23). retiree suffers an disease did not become until retirement—one "which does immediately result death disability" words Act—receives based "time injury," which defined as date becomes aware, reasonably relationship between employment, disease, disability. case, most cases, would more generous than benefits. Held: Claims are claims scheduled 8(c)(13), Respondent Director's undisputed characterization condition cause immediate accepted. A worker exposed excessive noise such which, injury, presumptively disabling, simultaneously with exposure. Thus, cannot "an . disability." holding essentially read this key phrase out statute. To extent there any unfairness statutory scheme employers may liable postretirement increases due aging, they can protect themselves giving employees audiograms at time retirement thereby freezing amount compensable loss. lone Senator's single passing remark legislative history persuade retirees' Pp. ____. 942 F.2d 811 (CA1 1991), STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Kevin M. Gillis, Portland, Me., petitioners. Ronald W. Lupton, Bath, employee. Christopher J. Wright, Washington, D.C., federal respondent. Justice STEVENS 1 Ernest C. learned The parties agree Act (LHWCA Act), 44 Stat. 1424, amended, 33 U.S.C. 901 seq., account injury. They disagree, however, proper method those 2 There three "systems"1 compensating partially disabled two issue case. "first" system provides claimants statutorily "scheduled" injuries, one "third" retirees suffer diseases do retirement. most, but all, injuries provided suffering latent diseases. question presented case discovers, retirement, first system, because third aware 3 Prior 1984, LHWCA permanent partial determined ways. If was schedule 8(c) 908(c)(1)-(20) (1982 ed.) injured two-thirds average weekly wage specific number weeks, See Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Office Programs, 449 268, 269-270, 101 509, 510, 66 446 (1980).2 Loss among specified injuries.3 all other authorized equal difference employee's postinjury capacity. 908(c)(21). unlike scheduled-injury cases presumed, it necessary prove decreased capacity.4 4 early Board5 confronted contracted asbestosis, manifest itself Because qualify benefit, presumption disability; moreover, affect actual earnings, could establish "disability" 902(10).6 Therefore, held, Aduddell Owens-Corning Fiberglass, 16 BRBS 131, 134 (1984).7 Three weeks decision, followed its reasoning involving claimant's Redick Bethlehem Steel 155 (1984). Although ALJ made finding "scheduled awards conclusive presumptions wage-earning rebutted," id., 156, vacated award "voluntary prior manifestation unrelated loss." Id., 157. 5 Congress amended adding unquestionably type rejected asbestos cases. With 1984 Amendments, payment only More precisely, new 10(i) addresses "due 910(i). 6 As systems, turns large part "average wage" used calculate When injury"—defined "the disability," ibid.—is within year upon wages just 910(d)(2)(A). injury" deemed national time. 910(d)(2)(B). 7 Once determined, calculated 8 For section 910(d)(2)," is, 910(i), shall applicable multiplied percentage impairment particular medical guides 908(c)(23). duration impairment. Ibid.8 differences significantly differing An i.e., degree body part, whereas "whole body" makes recovery provisions.9 II 9 loud during employment riveter chipper petitioner's iron works 1939 1947, again 1950 1972. 1985 received results audiogram indicating 82.4 percent hearing. provision Amendments case,10 then 10 ALJ, following precedent, respondent's concluded fell scope amendments relevant September when became Accordingly, wage. At point, departed system; instead applying formula diseases, turned benefit. Respondent's were thus limited precise opposed continuing throughout required Yet, formulas each benefit higher Section 8(c)(23).11 affirmed same rationale. 11 On appeal, petitioners (the employer insurance carrier) agreed meaning 10(i), argued erred failing apply appropriate claims. While challenged computing contest use 82.4% measure even though record contains persuasive evidence portion attributable aging process 12 Director Department Labor's Programs ALJ's different grounds. error made, argued, looking "does Relying scientific evidence, disability: 13 "[D]eafness typically before After worker's workplace-noise-induced deafness will ordinarily grow worse; if anything get better. R.T. Sataloff & Sataloff, Occupational Hearing 357 (1987). Moreover, symptoms occur 'disease.' words, say '84.4% deaf' lost 84.4% notice deafness, file long fact mean deaf; no symptom; rather, means grown accustomed quite matter." 811, 816 1991) (summarizing argument). Accepting therefore fall system. "[U]sing ordinary English," court noted, "one normally causes symptoms, namely hearing, occurrence. One simply person deaf—whether notices how deaf is." 817 (emphasis added). Having ruled application found squarely draws distinction working expressly result—application calculation 8(c)(13)—but diseases.12 14 reached opposite conclusion. both courts below rejecting "hybrid" approach, contrast decision below, "a provisions enacted 1984. Ingalls Shipbuilding 898 1088 (CA5 1990); Alabama Dry Dock Corp. Sowell, 933 1561 (CA11 1991). We granted certiorari resolve conflict. 503 ----, 112 1472, 117 616 (1992). now affirm. III 15 Petitioners dispute lower court's we find basis doing so ourselves. accept characterization, follows 1984—the so-called —do long-latency "immediately Whereas harmful levels manifests years later, disability, plain language leads conclusion class covered recognized crucial nonetheless Congress, enacting intend distinguish types retirees. particular, these concerned respect silent claim. That it?13 response complete, last exposure workplace noise, "date exposure" rule resurrected absent some indication congressional intent so. Ingalls, F.2d, 1093-1094; 1566-1567. 17 reasons. First, statute every 910(i) Asbestosis disease; not. ignoring certainly treated differently nature occupa tional suffered. statute, path took. 18 Second, while true fixing wage, substance, involved asbestosis. See, e.g., Todd Shipyards Black, 717 1280 (CA9 1983). using inappropriate because, according understanding, time; arises later itself. 1290 ("The consider himself 'injured' merely [asbestos] fibers embedded lung"). reasons explained above, said about occurs noise. complete ceases. circumstances, think exposure—the complete—is 19 Nor persuaded petitioners' arguments why correctly point occupation remain constant worsen our view, matter computation benefit—a case14—rather eligibility providing their employment. 20 also out, correctly, debate Senator reference suggested House Senate conferees disagreed 130 Cong.Rec. 26300 (1984) (statement Sen. Hatch). infer amendment construed addition necessarily follow premise, reject argument reasons, sufficient. carefully read, text unambiguous issue; accordingly, give weight floor Senate. preserve timeliness exposure.15 It accomplished purpose postponing awareness, but, contrary, filing begin run connection audiogram. ." 908(c)(13)(D). responded concern earnings interrelated consti tuting amending IV 21 given, hold, LHWCA, 8(c)(23).16 22 judgment Appeals, 23 ordered. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. United States Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. various methods labeled retain briefs useful adhere discussion example, lose arm pay 312 908(c)(1), leg 288 weeks. 908(c)(2). period total ears. requires proportionate reduction n. 9, infra. 902(10) term "incapacity earn receiving employment." ed.). presumed disabled, earnings. (1980), produced 8(c)(21). 270-271, S.Ct., 510-511. created "hear determine appeals [the Act]." 921(b)(3). supra. Worrell Newport News 216 (1983) (Administrative (ALJ) denying where developed died mesothelioma retirement); 681 938, (CA4 1982) ("Before asbestosis disabling; diminished capacity"). Piecing together, 8(c), 908(c), provides: "Permanent character quality 662/3 per centum wages, paid employee, follows: "(13) Hearing: "(B) ears, two-hundred "(21) Other cases: thereafter otherwise, payable continuance "(23) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (22), 910(d)(2) title, impairment, referred impairment." 10(d), 910(d), "(2) paragraph (1), (as subsection (i) section) — "(A) retired, fifty-second annual 52-week preceding retirement; injury." "For purposes exercise reasonable diligence reason advice (82.4 percent), see infra, __, reduced 165 (200 times .824 equals weeks). 908(c)(19). referenced translates into 29 person." receive aspects provide favorable treatment claimants. instance, impaired, continue Title 908(c)(13)(D) "The 912 compensation, 913 audiogram, accompanying report thereon, indicates hearing." supra, text. fully injuries. Instead injured, 1985, __. raise considered waived. 819. well. order able identify 10, holding, support approach. combining governing note receded interpretation Harms Stevedoring Services America, 25 375, 382 (1992) ("Where applies, renders Section[s] 8(c)(1)-(22), inapplicable").

Category: 7