Document: 447 U.S. 715 100 S.Ct. 2432 65 L.Ed.2d 458 SUN SHIP, INC., Appellant,v.Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA et al. No. 79-343. Argued April 14, 1980. Decided June 23, Rehearing Denied Aug. 22, See 448 916, 101 37. Syllabus Held: A State may apply its workers' compensation scheme to landbased injuries that fall within the coverage Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (Act), as amended in 1972. Pp. 717-726. (a) Under law governing jurisdiction over marine-related before 1972, nonlocal maritime fell under Act, "maritime but local" "upon navigable waters United States," 33 U.S.C. § 903(a), could be compensated either or state law, suffered beyond waters—albeit range federal admiralty jurisdiction—were remediable only law. Cf. Davis v. Department Labor, 317 249, 63 225, 87 L.Ed. 246; Calbeck Travelers Insurance Co., 370 114, 82 1196, 8 368; Nacirema Operating Co. Johnson, 396 212, 90 347, 24 371. 717-719. (b) The extension landward shoreline States 1972 amendments supplements, rather than supplants, language cannot fairly understood pre-empting remedies from field thereby resurrecting jurisdictional monstrosity existed clarifying opinions Davis, supra, Calbeck, supra. Nor does legislative history suggest a congressional decision exclude laws terrain newly occupied by post-1972 Act. 719-722. (c) disparities which Congress had view amending lay primarily paucity relief laws, concurrent for is not inconsistent with amendments' policy raising awards minimum. Even though, if remedial schemes are more generous result favorable an exclusively system, there no evidence was concerned about disparity between adequate benefits superior benefits, quid pro quo employers being simply abolition longshoremen's unseaworthiness remedy. bare fact systems different give rise conflict that, employer's standpoint, necessitates exclusivity each system separate sphere, since, even were exclusive field, many would compelled abide state-imposed responsibilities lest claim Act's scope. 723-726. 41 Pa.Cmwlth. 302, 398 A.2d 1111, affirmed. Jeffery C. Hayes, Philadelphia, Pa., appellant. Joseph Lurie, appellees. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 single question presented these consolidated cases whether land-based (LHWCA), §§ 901-950. We hold it may. 2 * individual appellees five employees appellant Sun Ship, Inc., shipbuilding ship repair enterprise located on Delaware River, water Pennsylvania. Each employee injured after effective date LHWCA while involved activities. Although applied sustained, appellee filed claims Pennsylvania Workmen's authorities. Appellant contended statute employees' In upholding appellee,1 Appeal Board ruled did pre-empt laws. Commonwealth Court affirmed, Supreme denied petitions allowance appeal. noted probable jurisdiction, 444 1011, 658, 62 639 (1980), affirm. II 3 evolution workers precincts familiar. 1917, Southern Pacific Jensen, 244 205, 37 524, 61 1086, declared constitutionally barred applying their injuries, thus interfering overriding uniform Subsequent decisions invalidated efforts delegate compensatory authority this national sphere. Knickerbocker Ice Stewart, 253 149, 40 438, 64 834 (1920); Washington W. Dawson & 264 219, 44 68 646 (1924). At same time, began narrow Jensen doctrine identifying circumstances subject litigation might yet "local character," amenable Western Fuel Garcia, 257 233, 42 89, 66 210 (1921); Grant Smith-Porter Ship Rohde, 469, 157, 321 (1922). And, 1927, finally successful extending measure protection marine excluded enacting law—the 901 seq. That provided, pertinent part, "[c]ompensation shall payable [for injury] . occurring upon recovery through workmen's proceedings validly provided law." Stat. 1426. 4 Federal linked together provide theoretically complete laborers. But boundary at gave way far obvious cases. As result, worker make guess filing claim; price error unnecessary expense possible foreclosure proper forum statue limitations. 254, 228, 246 (1942). After decade half during been formulated "any guiding, definite rule determine extent power advance litigation," id., 253, S.Ct., 227, determined border less line "twilight zone," "employees must have rights case ," 256, 229. Within zone, effectively established regime jurisdiction. 5 368 (1962), further overlapped state-law workers. held comprehended "all sustained waters," 124, 1202, without regard locus event local," hence scope provisions. interpreted statutory phrase "if law" mean 6 "reac[h] all those injury rendered questionable availability remedy [,] particular one also constitutional reach Id., 126-127, 1203. 7 Yet having extended into overturn treating exclusive. To contrary, relied discussed length proposition sphere U.S., 128-129, 1204. So, too, Calbeck's explanation Avondale Marine Ways, Inc. Henderson, 346 366, 74 100, 98 77 (1953), indicated although compensable "there little doubt act it." 129, significantly, ruling should elected pursue necessarily premised concurrently available. 131-132, 1205-1206; see alsoNacirema 220-221, 352-353, 371 (1969); Nations Morris, 483 F.2d 577 (C.A.5 1973) (Brown, C.J.). Before then, three spheres they moved landward. furthest extreme, commanded LHWCA. "Maritime And III 9 superseded Johnson States. Pub.L. 92-576, 86 1251, 903(a). so doing, became, first source always viewed province 10 Absent any contradicting signal Congress, principles direct conclusion Given pre-1972 ran follows expansion well. For regulation clearly appropriate ashore waters. Compare Industrial Comm'n Nordenholt Corp., 259 263, 473, 933 (1922), 1086 (1917). Furthermore, "jurisdictional dilemma," 255, results when two acute fixed land, drawn spheres. read compelling laborers seek mutually lead prejudicial consequences we described 11 "defeat[ing] purpose act, seeks 'to hardworking men, engaged somewhat hazardous employment, justice modern principle compensation,' acts ai[m] 'sure certain workmen.' " 228. 12 126, 13 LHWCA, Calbeck. focuses our attention deletion 903(a) phrase: "[i]f But, anything, change reinforces previous interpretation section contemplating reference strongest (although ultimately unsuccessful) argument reading provision. 132, 1206 (STEWART, J., dissenting). Whether acceptedCalbeck's clause consonant dissenters' construction 1972—if indicates anything—may logically imply acquiescence operates ambit remedies.2 It tour de force misinterpretation treat removal phrasing arguably establishes manifesting intent command such exclusivity. 14 can draw support general expressions alleviate unjust conditioned location time accident; Part IV, infra, demonstrates, concurrency undercuts commendable policy. much assisted fixing sentence bill Reports declares: 15 "It apparent benefit structure embodied Committee enacted, substantial permanently disabled longshoreman, depending side water's edge accident occurred, permitted continue land." S.Rep.No.92-1125, p. (1972); H.R.Rep.No.92-1441, (1972), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News pp. 4698, 4707 (emphasis added). 16 statement likely means land; "substantial benefits" troubled eliminated once provides supplementary route compensation. event, Professors Gilmore Black noted, "the appear entitled weight," since "part Report devoted shoreward LH[W]CA mention 'maritime local' 'twilight zone.' ." G. Black, Law Admiralty 425 (2d ed. 1975) (hereafter Black).3 particular, intimation overrule —a significant omission light care elsewhere take overturned actions unseaworthiness. 8-12; 4-8, 4698; 425. 17 therefore find sign wished alter accepted understanding coexist latter operate doctrine.4 IV 18 vigorously contends, nevertheless, is—in "fact" "law"—implied Pointing declarations eliminate land water, 12-13; 10-11, 4707, urges defeat uniformity underlying statute. 19 clear, laws.5 thrust "upgrade benefits." 1; Northeast Terminal Caputo, 432 261-262, 97 2348, 2356, 53 320 (1977). Concurrent When file standards. who commence will generally able up difference levels seeking applies.6 20 sure, system.7 benefits. Rather, seems 4-5; H.R.Rep.No.92-1141, 1, 2356. Indeed, noteworthy discussion advantages amendments, dwell rejection action, do pre-emption remedies. 4698. 21 Finally, persuaded gives Mandating relieve distinct obligations circumscribes compass LHWCA—a compound "status" "situs"—is vague counterpart pre-"twilight zone" era. P. Pfeiffer Ford, 69, 328, 225 (1979); supra; 424, 428-430; A. Larson, 89.70, 16-283 (1979). Thus, LHWCA.8 Our observation apt barriers erected edge: "The horns dilemma press sharply employees." 22 Of thing certain. us peril rescued 425.9 animating LHWCA's shift remedial; framers acted out solicitude 74-75, 333; 268, 2359. adopt appellant's position, blunt frustrate Congress' aid decline name "uniformity." 23 Accordingly, ordered. Initially referees heard claims. Four granted compensation, rejecting argument. referee Fields' inflicted, agreed contention, dismissed case. If jointed underscored application where compensability then striking explained ground superfluity pushed line. took position imposed exclusivity, repeal endeavored reaffirm correctness removing possibly contradictory language. writer mistakenly assumed occurred consequently respect covered amendments." argues mandate discerned 905(a), part "[t]he liability employer place other employee. Since provision predates however, discredit (1942), (1962). fact, upheld award against credited payments made aegis statute; 905 "not case," n. 16, 1206, 16. construe 905(a) offered jurisdictions. 432-433, 335d; cf. McCartin, 330 622, 67 886, 91 1140 (1947). signify interpretation. "To matters worse, most inadequate; better come nowhere close meeting National Commission Laws recommended standard maximum limit 4707. Most often, treated making thereunder final conclusive. 431-433; 85.20, 89.53(a) Conflict Problem Between Acts, 45 S.Cal.L.Rev. 699, 729-730 (1972). Admittedly, indisputably declare final, arise claimant inferior instance. drastic mistake contemplates—under misstep rate, directly us, observe preclusion ever need implied cope remote contingency, disruptive approach clause, entire suggests. situation exceedingly rare. Compensation, 89.27, 16-180. also, S.Cal.L.Rev., 736-737. course, danger double employers' second scheme. See, e. g., 131, 1205. "Indeed theory sensible dealing statutes meet some vaguely defined line."

Category: 7