Category: LHWCA

January 22, 2021
by Laurel Hensley

Join SBH Attorney Steve Verotsky to learn about Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Insurance

SBH resident Longshore expert, Steve Verotsky, will join Dan Schaller from Woodruff Sawyer and Moderator Gary McCann on Wednesday February 10 at 12:00 pm in a webinar to discuss United State Longshore & Harbor workers’ compensation insurance. Steve and Dan will cover key topics and common questions including: Recognizing when…

December 4, 2017
by Norman Cole

LHWCA Caselaw Update

There were several attorney fee decisions.  All were unpublished and therefore only instructive rather than precedent.  In Abassi v. Misson Essential Personnel and Yunis v. Academi, LLC, ALJ’s had based an award in part on fee awards from the district court.  The Board directed the ALJ’s to explain how the…

September 6, 2017
by Norman Cole

LHWCA Caselaw Update

            This quarter most decisions were unpublished and not especially noteworthy.  Unpublished decisions cannot be cited as precedent are instructive. Huntington Ingalls fought and lost a series of battles against medical providers who sought payment for claim related services.  It offered payment equal to the amount the providers agreed to…

June 7, 2017
by Norman Cole

LHWCA Caselaw Update

Below are recent decisions under the LHWCA. Decisions are published in Lexis and posted on the BRB website through 5/30/17. For those among us who deal with Charles Robinowitz, Judge Clark and Judge Gee awarded fees for 2015/2016 services in the range of $350 to $360 rather than $450 to…

February 10, 2017
by Norman Cole

LHWCA Caselaw Summary

The following is a review of recent relevant Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act caselaw. There were relatively few decisions and none created new law with the possible exception of the 4th Circuit’s decision in Metro Machine Corporation.  The Benefits Review Board issued 13 LHWCA decisions in November, 5 in…

December 16, 2016
by Norman Cole

LHWCA Quarterly Case Law Summary

Attorney Fees – Entitlement Board allows fees for defending a fee petition.  Baker Botts not binding on fee shifting statutes.  Clisso v. Elro Coal Company, 2016 WL 3575792 (BRB 15-0010 BLA, 2016). Employer objected to payment of $300 for one hour of attorney services for defense of the fee petition. …

August 12, 2016
by Norman Cole

LHWCA Quarterly Caselaw Summary

The Board and courts seem to have taken time off for vacation during the last several months.  The volume of new LHWCA cases is relatively low for this quarter. In SSA Terminals & Homeport Insurance Co. v. Carrion and Director OWCP, 2016 WL 2731593 (9th Cir., 13-72929, 5/11/16), the court…

July 15, 2016
by Megan Vaniman

Department of Labor increases penalties under LHWCA

The Department of Labor issued an interim final rule increasing penalties assessed by the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs under the LHWCA. The new rules increase penalties for: Failure to file first report of injury or filing a false statement or misrepresentation in first report increased from maximum of $11,000…

April 21, 2016
by Norman Cole

LHWCA Quarterly Caselaw Update

The most significant decision in this cycle probably is Moody v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.. Claimant informed the employer he intended to retire as of November 1, 2011.  He injured his shoulder before he retired but continued to work.  He first sought treatment for the shoulder the day after he retired,…

January 21, 2016
by Norman Cole

Longshore Quarterly Caselaw Review

Attorney fees continue to be a hot topic in caselaw.  In Shirrod v. Director, OWCP the 9th Circuit held market rates must be based on rates in the relevant market, which usually is the location where the litigation occurs.  Economic surveys that do not report rates in the relevant market…

September 22, 2015
by Norman Cole

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Case Law Update

The last several months yielded several interesting decisions. In Raiford v. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., the Board held a reaction to a legitimate personnel action was not compensable and was insufficient, for purposes of §20(a), to demonstrate an accident or working conditions that could cause harm.  To hold otherwise would…