Court Opinion

ID: 993028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:01:38.952045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:59.317509
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,

v.

ELOAH EL-EMANU-EL; DIRECTOR,
                                                                        No. 96-2345
OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Benefits Review Board.
(93-2347)

Submitted: August 29, 1997

Decided: September 19, 1997

Before HALL, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Richard W. Scheiner, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Bernard G. Link, Lutherville, Maryland, for
Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bethlehem Steel Corporation ("Bethlehem Steel") petitions for
review of a decision and order of the Benefits Review Board affirm-
ing an order of an Administrative Law Judge that awarded interest on
benefits granted to Eloah El-Emanu-El under the Longshore and Har-
bor Worker's Compensation Act ("the Act"), 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-950
(West 1986 & Supp. 1997). Although Bethlehem Steel does not dis-
pute the grant of benefits, it contends that the award of interest was
improper. Based on precedent in this court and other circuits, we dis-
agree. Consequently, we affirm.

As Bethlehem Steel correctly notes, the Act is silent regarding
interest payments on past due compensation awards. However, courts
that have addressed this issue, including this court, have permitted
such awards. See Sea-land Serv., Inc. v. Barry , 41 F.3d 903, 910-11
(3d Cir. 1994); Foundation Const., Inc. v. Director, 950 F.2d 621,
625 (9th Cir. 1991); Quave v. Progress Marine , 912 F.2d 798, 801
(5th Cir. 1990); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v.
Director, 594 F.2d 986, 987 (4th Cir. 1979); Newport News Ship-
building & Dry Dock Co. v. Graham, 573 F.2d 167, 171 (4th Cir.
1978). Assessment of interest in these situations is proper because
after the compensation is due but unpaid, the employer has use of
money owed to the claimant. See Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry
Dock Co. v. Director, 594 F.2d at 987. Accordingly, the assessment
of interest on past due compensation was appropriate in this case.

For this reason, we affirm the order of the Benefits Review Board.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2