Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

563 F.2d 646

Docket Nos. 75-1051 and 75-1088.

I.T.O. Corp. of Baltimore v. Benefits Review Board

Full caption · 2 consolidated cases

  • I.T.O. CORPORATION OF BALTIMORE, Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrierv.BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, William T. Adkins, Respondent, International Longshoremen's Association, Amicus Curiae. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STEVEDORES and California Stevedore & Ballast Co., Carolina Shipping Company, The Chesapeake Operating Company, Cilco Terminal Co., Inc., John T. Clark & Son of Boston, Bernard S. Costello, Inc., Dixie Stevedores, Inc., Eller & Company, Inc., Global Terminal & Container Services, Inc., Federal Marine Terminals, Inc., Gulf St
  • Smith & Son, Inc., Strachan Shipping Co., Transoceanic Terminal Corp., Universal Maritime Service Corp., Westfall Stevedore Co., Wilmington Shipping Co., Young and Company of Houston, Its member companiesv.BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, William T. Adkins

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted July 28, 1977. Decided Sept. 22, 1977.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1977-09-22

4 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, is not a proper respondent in a petition for review ... although upon application and for good cause shown he may be permitted to intervene therein.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Corporation of Virginia v. Pettus, Corporation of Virginia v. Pettus

“although upon application and for good cause shown he may be permitted to intervene therein.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company v. Jackie H. Harcum

Relies on Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo · I. T. O. Corporation of Baltimore, Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier v. Benefits Review Board, U. S. Department of Labor, William T. Adkins, International Longshoremen's Association, Amicus Curiae. Maritime Terminals, Inc., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Secretary of Labor, and Donald D. Brown, Maritime Terminals, Inc., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Vernie Lee Harris, and United States Department of Labor, National Association of Stevedores v. Benefits Review Board, U. S. Dept. Of Labor, William T. Adkins · I.T.O. Corporation of Baltimore, Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier v. Benefits Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor, William T. Adkins, International Longshoreman's Association, Amicus Curiae. Maritime Terminals, Inc., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Secretary of Labor, and Donald D. Brown, Maritime Terminals, Inc., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Vernie Lee Harris, and United States Department of Labor, National Association of Stevedores v. Benefits Review Board, U.S. Dept. Of Labor, William T. Adkins

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1977-09-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1996

17 federal appellate ·

110197719801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

David R. Owen, Baltimore, Md. (Francis J. Gorman, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for petitioners in No. 75-1051.

Donald A. Krach, Baltimore, Md. (William C. Stifler, III, Paul B. Lang, Niles, Barton & Wilmer, Baltimore, Md., Thomas D. Wilcox, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioners in No. 75-1088.

Linda L. Carroll, Atty., Washington, D.C. (William J. Kilberg, Sol. of Labor, Washington, D.C., Marshall H. Harris, Associate Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., George M. Lilly, Karen L. Gilbert, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., on brief), for respondents in No. 75-1051.

Amos I. Meyers, Baltimore, Md. (Terry Paul Meyers, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for respondents in Nos. 75-1051 and 75-1088.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER, BUTZNER, RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges, sitting in banc.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

We reversed the award made to William T. Adkins under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., as amended in 1972, in I.T.O. Corp. of Baltimore v. Adkins, 529 F.2d 1080 (4 Cir.1975), modified in banc, 542 F.2d 903 (4 Cir.1976).* Thereafter, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment and remanded the cause "for further consideration in light of Northeast Marine Terminal Co., Inc. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 97 S.Ct. 2348, 53 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977)." 432 U.S. ----, 97 S.Ct. 2967, 53 L.Ed.2d 1088 (1977).

¶2

Upon reconsideration, we are persuaded that the award to Adkins must be sustained because he satisfied both the status and situs requirements of the 1972 amendments to the Act, as interpreted in Northeast Marine, at the time that he was injured. We adhere to our view, however, that the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, is not a proper respondent in a petition for review under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c), although upon application and for good cause shown he may be permitted to intervene therein.

¶3

AFFIRMED.

¶4

BUTZNER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

¶5

I concur in sustaining the award to Adkins. I believe that the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, should be recognized as a party to these proceedings. Therefore, I dissent from that part of the opinion which denies him standing as a respondent. See I.T.O. Corp. of Baltimore v. Benefits Review Board, etc., 542 F.2d 903, 909 (4th Cir.1976) (Craven and Butzner, Circuit Judges, dissenting).

*

As part of these appeals, we sustained awards to Donald D. Brown and Vernie Lee Harris by an equally divided court. Certiorari in their cases was denied. Maritime Terminals, Inc. v. Brown, --- U.S. ----, 97 S.Ct. 2972, 53 L.Ed.2d 1092 (1977)

/563/f2d/646 · .json · Public domain