Huntington Ingalls Industries v. Ricky Eason

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 13-0573. [999594420]. [14-1698]

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 31

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1698

HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a Northrup Grumman
Shipbuilding, Inc.,
Petitioner,
v.
RICKY N. EASON; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(13−0573)

Argued:

March 25, 2015

Decided:

June 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition granted by published opinion.
Senior Judge Hamilton
wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Floyd
joined.

ARGUED: Jonathan Henry Walker, MASON, MASON, WALKER & HEDRICK,
PC, Newport News, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Matthew W. Boyle,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Gregory
Edward Camden, MONTAGNA, KLEIN, CAMDEN, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Respondents.
ON BRIEF: M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of
Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Mark Reinhalter,
Counsel for Longshore, Gary K. Stearman, Counsel for Appellate

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 31

Litigation, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Federal Respondent.

- 2 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 31

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge:
Huntington

Ingalls

Industries,

Inc.

(HI)

petitions

for

review of the May 16, 2014 decision of the Benefits Review Board
(BRB) upholding the August 16, 2013 decision of Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) Daniel Sarno, Jr. (Judge Sarno) granting the
claim of Ricky Eason (Eason) for temporary partial disability
under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA
or the Act), 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950. 1

For the reasons that follow,

we grant the petition for review and remand the case to the BRB
to enter an order dismissing Eason’s claim for temporary partial
disability under the LHWCA.

I
A
The

LHWCA

establishes

a

federal

worker’s

compensation

system for employees injured, disabled, or killed in the course
of

covered

(medical

maritime

services

(compensation

for

and

employment.
supplies

disability),

See
to
id.

1

generally

treat
§ 909

injury),

id.

§ 907

id.

§ 908

(compensation

for

Eason’s filing of his disability claim brought the
Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP),
United States Department of Labor (the Director) into the case
as an interested party. Cf. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Dir.,
OWCP, 519 U.S. 248, 262–70 (1997) (holding that the Director may
appear as respondent in the courts of appeals when review is
sought of a BRB decision).

- 3 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

death).

Like

Filed: 06/02/2015

other

Pg: 4 of 31

worker’s

“compensation

regimes--limited

liability for employers; certain, prompt recovery for employees-the

LHWCA

requires

voluntarily,

that

without

employers

formal

pay

[disability]

administrative

benefits

proceedings.”

Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1350, 1354 (2012);
see also 33 U.S.C. § 904 (“Every employer shall be liable for
and

shall

secure

the

payment

to

his

employees

of

the

compensation payable under sections 907, 908, and 909 of this
title.”).
The

LHWCA

“incapacity

defines

because

“[d]isability,”

of

injury

to

in

earn

pertinent

the

wages

part,
which

as
the

employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any
other

employment.”

categories

of

33

U.S.C.

disabilities

are

§
set

902(10).
forth

Four

in

the

different
LHWCA:

(1)

permanent total disability; (2) temporary total disability; (3)
permanent
disability.

partial

disability;

and

(4)

temporary

partial

Id. § 908(a)–(c), (e).

No standard is set forth in the LHWCA to determine the
degree of a disability (total or partial) or the duration of a
disability (permanent or temporary).

Because disability under

the LHWCA is an economic concept, see Metro. Stevedore Co. v.
Rambo, 515 U.S. 291, 297 (1995) (“Disability under the LHWCA,
defined in terms of wage-earning capacity . . . , is in essence
an

economic,

not

a

medical,

concept.”),

- 4 -

the

degree

of

a

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

disability

Filed: 06/02/2015

cannot

be

Nardella

v.

Campbell

1975).

measured
Mach.

Consideration

Pg: 5 of 31

by

Inc.,

must

be

medical

525

given

F.2d
to

condition
46,

the

49

alone,

(9th

Cir.

claimant’s

age,

education, experience, mentality, ability to work as well as the
extent of the physical injury, and the availability of suitable
alternative employment.

Fleetwood v. Newport News Shipbuilding

& Dry Dock Co., 776 F.2d 1225, 1227 n.2 (4th Cir. 1985).
regard

to

duration,

until

he

reaches

Dir.,

OWCP,

909

a

claimant

“maximum
F.2d

remains

medical

1256,

1259

temporarily

improvement.”
(9th

Cir.

With

disabled

Stevens

1990).

v.

Maximum

medical improvement marks the time where “normal and natural
healing is no longer likely” to occur.

Pac. Ship Repair &

Fabrication Inc. v. Dir., OWCP [Benge], 687 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th
Cir.

2012)

(citation

and

internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

Thus, the “maximum medical improvement date ‘triggers a change
in the classification of a claimant’s disability from temporary
to permanent.’”

Id. (quoting Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. Ogawa,

608 F.3d 642, 653 (9th Cir. 2010)).
Which of the four categories of disability the claimant
falls in dictates the amount of compensation paid to him by his
employer.

A permanently totally disabled employee is entitled

to weekly compensation amounting to two-thirds of his pre-injury
average

weekly

wage

totally disabled.

for

as

long

as

he

remains

permanently

33 U.S.C. § 908(a); Roberts, 132 S. Ct. at
- 5 -

Appeal: 14-1698

1354.

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 6 of 31

The compensation payable for a temporary total disability

remains

fixed

compensation

at

for

a

that

two-thirds

permanent

figure,

total

while

disability

is

weekly
annually

adjusted to reflect increases to the national average weekly
wage.

33 U.S.C. § 910(f).

The

LHWCA

disability.

recognizes

two

types

of

permanent

partial

One, commonly referred to as “unscheduled” or “non-

scheduled” compensation, is based on the employee’s actual loss
of

wage-earning

compensated

capacity
two-thirds

at

and,

like

of

the

total

disability,

difference

between

is
the

employee’s average weekly wage at the time of injury and his
post-injury

wage-earning

capacity.

Id.

§

908(c)(21).

The

other, commonly referred to as “scheduled” compensation, covers
specified

body

compensation
wage.

Id.

parts,

at

and

two-thirds

pays
of

§ 908(c)(1)-(17),
a

presumed

a

fixed

number

the

employee’s

(20).

These

(not

weeks

average

scheduled

amounts

capacity.

Korineck v. Gen. Dynamics Corp. Elec. Boat Div., 835

the

compensation

schedule
at

entitles

two-thirds

U.S.C. § 908(c)(2).

of

of

weekly

for

under

loss

of

compensate

F.2d 42, 43-44 (2d Cir. 1987).

actual)

of

wage-earning

For example, the loss of a leg
a
his

claimant
average

to

288

weekly

weeks
wage.

of
33

For a partial loss of the use of a leg,

which includes knee injuries, the number of weeks is multiplied
by the percentage of loss.

Id. § 908(c)(19).
- 6 -

Thus, a claimant

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 7 of 31

with a 50% loss of the use of his leg would receive compensation
for 144 weeks.
disabled

due

Notably, a claimant who is permanently partially
to

a

scheduled

injury

cannot

choose

to

be

compensated for his actual loss of wage-earning capacity under
§ 908(c)(21),

even

though

the

compensation

under

§ 908(c)(21)

potentially may be greater than the compensation paid under the
schedule.

See Potomac Electric Power Co. [PEPCO] v. Dir., OWCP,

449 U.S. 268, 270-71 (1980) (holding that a claimant who was
permanently partially disabled due to a scheduled injury could
not choose to be compensated for his actual loss of wage-earning
capacity under § 908(c)(21) rather than being compensated for
his loss as provided by the schedule).
Compensation

for

temporary

partial

disability

is

“two-

thirds of the difference between the injured employee’s average
weekly wages before the injury and his wage-earning capacity
after the injury in the same or another employment.”
§ 908(e).

Under

the

LHWCA,

temporary

33 U.S.C.

partial

disability

compensation cannot be paid for a period longer than five years.
Id.
Once the claimant is classified in a particular disability
category,

he

need

not

Benge, 687 F.3d at 1185.

necessarily

remain

in

such

category.

This is so because permanent/temporary

and total/partial are fluid concepts and not “cast in stone.”
Id.

at

1186.

Reclassification
- 7 -

of

a

disability

requires

a

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 8 of 31

showing of a “change[] [in] circumstances.”

Id. at 1185; see

also 33 U.S.C. § 922 (providing that, with certain time limits,
“on the ground of a change in conditions . . . , the deputy
commissioner may . . . , whether or not a compensation order has
been issued . . . , review a compensation case . . . [and] issue
a

new

compensation

reinstate,

order

increase,

compensation”).

or

For

which

decrease

example,

may
such

a

terminate,
compensation,

claimant

with

a

continue,
or

award

permanent

partial disability may become permanently totally disabled or
temporarily totally disabled if his injury worsens and renders
him permanently or temporarily totally disabled.
F.3d

at

1185-87

(holding

that

permanent

See Benge, 687

partial

disability

claimant became temporarily totally disabled following surgery
to treat injury).

Likewise, a claimant with a permanent total

disability may be reclassified to having a permanent partial
disability if suitable alternative employment becomes available.
See Stevens, 909 F.2d at 1259-60 (holding that a permanent total
disability

changes

to

a

permanent

partial

disability

when

suitable alternative employment becomes available to claimant).
It is also possible that a disability deemed permanent and total
or

permanent

and

partial

may

improve

“due

to

a

remarkable

recovery, advances in medical science, or other reasons” such
that the claimant may be recharacterized as temporarily totally

- 8 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 9 of 31

disabled or temporarily partially disabled.

Benge, 687 F.3d at

1185.
B
On September 28, 2008, Eason injured his right knee while
employed as a pipe fitter at Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry
Dock Company (NNS) in Newport News, Virginia. 2

He went to the

medical clinic at NNS on October 1, 2008, complaining of pain in
his right knee.

The injury, which was diagnosed on October 14,

2008 as a torn meniscus requiring surgery, kept Eason completely
out of work from October 2, 2008 through June 28, 2009.

As a

result, HI paid Eason temporary total disability benefits for
this period.
On June 29, 2009, Eason returned to work at NNS full-time
as a pipe fitter.

On September 23, 2009, Eason was evaluated at

Tidewater

Physical

permanent

impairment

Therapy
rating.

and

given
Sometime

a

14%
in

lower

October

extremity
2009,

Dr.

David Hoang (Dr. Hoang), Eason’s treating orthopedic surgeon,
“signed off” on the 14% rating, and, thus, Eason reached maximum
medical improvement for purposes of determining his eligibility
for

permanent

partial

disability

compensation.

(J.A.

180).

Based on the 14% lower-extremity permanent impairment rating, HI
2

At the time of Eason’s injury, NNS was owned by Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (NGS).
In 2011, HI purchased NNS
from NGS. For ease of reference, we will refer to NGS as HI.

- 9 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 10 of 31

paid Eason from October 16, 2009 through May 17, 2010, and from
May 19, 2010 through July 25, 2010, 40.28 weeks of scheduled
compensation for permanent partial disability at $992.29 (twothirds of his pre-injury average weekly wage of $1,488.43) per
week.
of

See 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(2) (loss of leg provides 288 weeks

scheduled

loss

“may

member”). 3

be

compensation);
for

id.

proportionate

§ (c)(19)
loss

or

(permanent

loss

of

use

partial
of

the

Thus, for approximately seven months, Eason received

scheduled permanent partial disability compensation in addition
to his regular weekly salary for performing his duties as a pipe
fitter at NNS.
Eason continued to work full-time as a pipe fitter through
May 17, 2010.

On May 18, 2010, Eason met with Dr. Hoang and

reported that “his left knee was acting up on him and his right
knee was getting stiff intermittently, especially after sitting
for awhile.”

(J.A. 180).

Dr. Hoang noted “mild soreness” in

the right knee and “tenderness” in the left knee, (J.A. 83), and
he put Eason on light duty restrictions for both knees.

3

These

HI paid 40.28 weeks of compensation for the scheduled
injury, rather than 40.32 weeks (288 weeks x .14 = 40.32 weeks).
Although the record under review is unclear as to why the
difference exists, it may well be because HI paid an intervening
day (May 18, 2010) of compensation for temporary total
disability. In any event, the .04 difference is not at issue in
this appeal.
- 10 -

Appeal: 14-1698

light

Doc: 41

duty

Filed: 06/02/2015

restrictions

Pg: 11 of 31

prevented

Eason

from

performing

his

duties as a pipe fitter.
On his June 3, 2010 visit with Dr. Hoang, Eason reported
that his left knee “still hurts” and that his right knee was
“improving.”

(J.A. 83).

Dr. Hoang advised Eason to “continue

with the same work restrictions.”

(J.A. 84).

On July, 16,

2010, Eason reported to Dr. Hoang that his right knee was “doing
well” but the left knee was “grinding.”

(J.A. 84).

Dr. Hoang

directed Eason to “continue with the light duty [restrictions].”
(J.A. 85).

Over the next month, Eason’s condition improved, and

he returned to work full-time as a pipe fitter at NNS on August
10, 2010.
Between May 19, 2010 and August 9, 2010, NNS did not offer
Eason

light-duty

addition,

during

employment
this

within

period,

Eason

his

restrictions.

did

not

seek

In

suitable

alternative employment within the relevant labor market.
C
Eason

brought

a

claim

against

HI

for

temporary

total

disability or, alternatively, temporary partial disability for
the May 19, 2010 through August 9, 2010 time period.

In support

of his claim, Eason argued that during this time period he “was
not at maximum medical improvement.”

(J.A. 13).

He posited

that he was “undergoing ongoing medical treatment” and “under
temporary [work] restrictions.”

(J.A. 13).

- 11 -

Because no suitable

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 12 of 31

alternative employment was available, he argued he was entitled
to

temporary

total

disability

compensation.

Alternatively,

Eason argued that, even if HI’s alternative employment data were
entitled to “any weight,” he was entitled to temporary partial
disability compensation because his pre-injury salary exceeded
the salary of any alternative employment available.

(J.A. 13).

Eason posited that, even though he received scheduled permanent
partial

disability

compensation

did

compensation
not

prevent

for
the

his

knee

recovery

injury,
of

such

additional

compensation for a temporary partial disability due to a flare
up of that injury.
maximum

medical

In response, HI argued that Eason reached

improvement

in

October

2009.

Because

Eason

reached maximum medical improvement at that time and received
permanent partial disability compensation under the schedule, HI
posited that he was not entitled to any additional temporary
compensation--either total or partial--under the Supreme Court’s
decision

in

PEPCO.

HI

stressed

that

Eason’s

scheduled

compensation for his knee injury presumed his actual loss of
wage-earning capacity for that injury, such that any temporary
compensation (total or partial) sought for a flare up of that
injury

already

was

covered

was

held

by

the

payments

made

under

the

schedule.
A

hearing

Malamphy).

before

ALJ

Richard

Malamphy

(Judge

In his decision, Judge Malamphy found that Eason
- 12 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 13 of 31

reached maximum medical improvement in October 2009.
found

that

the

evidence

did

temporary total disability.

not

support

Eason’s

He also
claim

of

With regard to temporary partial

disability, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in PEPCO,
Judge Malamphy ruled that Eason’s disability compensation for
his

knee

schedule.

injury
He

was

limited

explained

to

that

the

“[t]he

amount
Act

required

presumes

by

the

that

the

scheduled award fully compensates claimant for any loss in wageearning capacity” and, “[t]herefore, any temporary loss of wage
earning

capacity

Claimant

suffered

addition to the scheduled award.”
Judge

Malamphy

held

that

the

is

not

(J.A. 184).
scheduled

compensable

in

In other words,

compensation

award

compensated Eason for his knee injury and that Eason was not
entitled to additional compensation for any temporary partial
loss of wage-earning capacity for that same injury.
On appeal, the BRB vacated Judge Malamphy’s decision.

The

BRB affirmed Judge Malamphy’s finding that Eason reached maximum
medical improvement in October 2009.

The BRB ruled, however,

that this finding did not preclude the recovery of temporary
partial

disability

compensation

for

Eason’s

knee

injury.

Referring to language in PEPCO that states “that a scheduled
injury can give rise to an award for permanent total disability”
and that “once it is determined that an employee is totally
disabled the schedule becomes irrelevant,” 449 U.S. at 277 n.17,
- 13 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 14 of 31

the BRB found that “the fact that permanent partial disability
benefits were fully paid under the schedule is not determinative
of

a

claimant’s

temporary

total,

(J.A. 188-89).

entitlement
or

thereafter

temporary

partial

to

permanent

disability

total,

benefits.”

Consequently, the BRB remanded the case to the

ALJ to determine whether Eason’s work restrictions from May 19,
2010 through August 19, 2010 prevented him from performing his
usual work.

If they did, the BRB stated, Eason would have

established a prima facie case of temporary total disability.
See Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 315
F.3d 286, 292 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting that an LHWCA “claimant
must

first

establish

a

prima

facie

case

by

demonstrating

an

inability to return to prior employment due to a work-related
injury”).

The burden would then shift to HI to establish the

availability of suitable alternative employment that Eason was
capable

of

performing.

See

id.

(outlining

burden

shift).

According to the BRB, HI could meet its burden by showing that
suitable alternative employment was available to Eason in the
relevant labor market.

See id. at 293 (noting that an employer

meets its burden by demonstrating, inter alia, that suitable
alternative
market).

employment

was

available

in

the

relevant

labor

Thus, on remand, the BRB required the ALJ to determine

if HI met its burden, such that its obligation to pay disability
benefits would be reduced or eliminated.
- 14 -

See id. (“Under our

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 15 of 31

precedent, if the employer meets its burden, its obligation to
pay disability benefits is either reduced or eliminated, unless
the

disabled

unsuccessfully

employee
sought

shows

that

appropriate

he

diligently

employment.”

but

(citation

and

internal quotation marks omitted)).
On remand, the case was reassigned to Judge Sarno.

Judge

Sarno found that Eason was not able to return to his usual work
from May 19, 2010 through August 9, 2010.
found

that

HI

had

established

the

However, Judge Sarno

availability

of

suitable

alternative employment for 32 hours per week at $7.25 per hour.
Judge

Sarno

concluded

that

Eason

was

temporarily

partially

disabled from May 19, 2010 through August 20, 2010 and entitled
to

compensation

of

$845.82

per

week

(two-thirds

of

the

difference between $1,488.43 per week, Eason’s average weekly
wage at the time of the injury, and $219.70 per week, Eason’s
residual

wage-earning

capacity

based

on

the

national

average

weekly wage in 2008, the year of Eason’s injury). 4

4

Judge Sarno noted that HI had established that Eason had a
wage-earning capacity under § 908(e) of $232.00 per week in
2010. This amount was adjusted downward to $219.70 per week in
order to account for inflation between 2008 and 2010.
See
Walker v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 793 F.2d 319, 321 n.2
(D.C. Cir. 1986) (“In order to make a fair comparison between
wages, the Board looks to the amount the post-injury job paid at
the time of the claimant’s injury.
This allows the Board to
compare the wages without worrying about the effect of
inflation.”); Quan v. Marine Power & Equip. Co., 30 BRBS 124,
1996 WL 581786, at *4 (BRBS 1996) (“Sections 8(c)(21) and 8(h)
(Continued)
- 15 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 16 of 31

HI appealed Judge Sarno’s decision to the BRB, arguing once
again that Eason was precluded from receiving any additional
compensation in addition to that received under the schedule.
The BRB found that it had already rejected that argument in its
earlier decision.
Judge Sarno’s

It also affirmed, as unchallenged on appeal,

findings

that

Eason

was

unable

to

perform

his

usual work from May 19, 2010 through August 20, 2010 and that HI
had

established

suitable

available

alternative

employment.

Consequently, it affirmed Judge Sarno’s award of compensation
for temporary partial disability from May 19 through August 20,
2010. 5

It is from this BRB decision that HI filed its timely

petition for review.

II
We

review

the

BRB’s

decision

for

errors

of

law

and

to

ascertain whether the BRB adhered to its statutorily-mandated
standard for reviewing the ALJ’s factual findings.

Gilchrist v.

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 135 F.3d 915, 918 (4th

require that a claimant’s post-injury wage earning capacity be
adjusted to account for inflation to represent the wages that
the post-injury job paid at the time of claimant’s injury.”).
5

Because he returned to work on August 10, 2010, Eason
concedes that Judge Sarno (and the BRB) erroneously awarded
temporary partial disability compensation from August 10, 2010
through August 20, 2010.
- 16 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Cir. 1998).

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 17 of 31

As to the BRB’s interpretation of the LHWCA, our

review is de novo because the BRB is not a policy-making agency
and, thus, its statutory interpretation is not entitled to any
special

deference

reasonable

from

us.

interpretation

deference.

Id.

of

the

However,
LHWCA

is

the

Director’s

entitled

to

some

See Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Hord,

193 F.3d 797, 801 (4th Cir. 1999) (“We note that this is the
result

advocated

by

the

Director

of

the

Office

of

Workers’

Compensation Programs, to whose reasonable interpretation of the
LHWCA we accord some deference.”).
In its petition for review, HI challenges Judge Sarno’s
award of temporary partial disability benefits from May 19, 2010
through August 20, 2010.
who

receives

disability

scheduled

cannot

HI argues that a claimant, like Eason,
compensation

subsequently

for

receive

a

permanent

additional

partial

temporary

partial disability compensation because the receipt of scheduled
permanent partial disability compensation for an injury includes
any

temporary

partial

disability

compensation.

Moreover,

HI

reads the LHWCA and PEPCO as precluding a claimant, like Eason,
with a scheduled injury from receiving any additional temporary
disability compensation--either total or partial--for the same
injury. 6

6

Eason counters by arguing that receipt of scheduled

HI concedes
(Continued)

that

a

claimant
- 17 -

who

receives

scheduled

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 18 of 31

permanent partial disability compensation for an injury is not
determinative

of

entitlement

to

temporary

compensation for the same injury.

partial

disability

According to Eason, PEPCO is

not particularly helpful to HI because it only dealt with a
permanent partial disability claim and not a claim, as here, for
temporary partial disability.

He suggests that his claim for

temporary partial disability is viable because his knee injury
flared up, preventing him from working as a pipe fitter from May
19, 2010 through August 9, 2010, though he apparently concedes
that suitable alternative employment was available during that
time.

He also posits that his argument is supported by PEPCO

because the Court there recognized the availability of total
disability compensation for a scheduled injury.
The Director, while agreeing with the result urged by HI,
takes a middle course.

He agrees with HI that a scheduled

permanent partial disability claimant cannot receive additional
temporary

partial

disability

compensation

for

the

injury

underlying the permanent partial disability compensation because
such temporary compensation essentially is duplicative to the

permanent partial disability compensation is not precluded from
subsequently receiving permanent total disability compensation.
See Petitioner’s Reply Br. at 2-3 (noting that scheduled
compensation is “exclusive to all other forms of compensation,
except for permanent total disability under 33 U.S.C. § 908(a)
of the Act”).
- 18 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

scheduled compensation.

Pg: 19 of 31

He also agrees with HI that a claimant

who receives scheduled permanent partial disability compensation
is

not

precluded

from

subsequently

disability compensation.
HI

that

a

disability

claimant

who

compensation

receiving

permanent

total

However, the Director disagrees with
receives

scheduled

for

injury

an

permanent

is

partial

precluded

from

receiving temporary total disability compensation for the same
injury.

According

to

the

Director,

the

LHWCA’s

statutory

framework supports his construction of the Act and nothing in
PEPCO

precludes

reclassification

of

a

scheduled

permanent

partial disability to a temporary total disability.

However,

because Eason’s injury has remained permanent and partial, the
Director

posits

that

reclassification

of

his

injury

is

not

warranted, and, thus, Eason is precluded from recovering any
additional disability compensation for his knee injury.
We agree with the position espoused by the Director, which
we

accord

suffered

some
a

deference.

scheduled

Hord,

injury.

193

Thus,

F.3d
his

at

801.

Eason

permanent

partial

disability compensation is set by the schedule.
at 270-71.

PEPCO, 449 U.S.

Such scheduled compensation is presumed to cover

Eason’s actual partial loss of wage-earning capacity due to that
partial disability.

See ITO Corp. of Balt. v. Green, 185 F.3d

239, 242 n.3 (4th Cir. 1999) (“The presumed effect of scheduled
disabilities on a claimant’s wage-earning capacity has been set
- 19 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 20 of 31

by Congress within a fairly narrow range.

Benefits are payable

for a specific duration regardless of the actual impact of the
disability on the claimant’s prospects of returning to longshore
(or any other) work.”); Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Cardillo, 229
F.2d 735, 736 (2d Cir. 1956) (noting that, “as to any schedule
loss, there is a conclusive presumption of loss or reduction of
wage-earning

capacity”).

Once

Eason’s

permanent

partial

disability compensation is set under the schedule, he is not
entitled to receive additional disability compensation for the
same

scheduled

injury

reclassification
temporary

of

total.

unless

that

the

circumstances

disability

See,

e.g.,

to

Benge,

warrant

a

total

or

permanent
687

F.3d

at

1185-87

(permitting claimant, who received unscheduled permanent partial
disability compensation, to receive temporary total disability
compensation because subsequent surgery rendered her temporarily
totally disabled); Hord, 193 F.3d at 801-02 (allowing claimant,
who was paid permanent partial disability compensation under the
schedule to recover temporary total disability compensation); DM
& IR Ry. Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 151 F.3d 1120, 1122-23 (8th Cir.
1998)

(allowing

disability
compensation

a

claimant

compensation
for

who

to

permanent

received

subsequently
total

permanent
recover

disability);

cf.

partial

disability
PEPCO,

449

U.S. at 277 n.17 (“Indeed, since the § 8(c) schedule applies
only

in

cases

of

permanent

partial

- 20 -

disability,

once

it

is

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 21 of 31

determined that an employee is totally disabled the schedule
becomes irrelevant.”).

This is so because, once a disability

becomes total, it makes no sense to apply a presumption designed
to

approximate

a

compensation.
presumes

the

A

claimant’s
permanent

loss

of

all

permanent
or

partial

disability

total

disability

temporary

wage-earning

capacity,

while

permanent partial disability involves only a partial loss.
Benge,

687

F.3d

at

1187

(noting

that

any

total

in

the

disability

compensation

for

the

See

disability

presupposes the loss of all wage-earning capacity).
increase

a

Thus, an

change

from

permanent partial to either permanent total or temporary total
is warranted to account for the additional actual loss in wageearning capacity.

Such a conclusion comports with the basic

purpose of the LHWCA, which is to provide compensation for the
actual loss of wage-earning capacity.

See Korineck, 835 F.2d at

44 (noting that the purpose of the LHWCA is “to provide work
benefits for lost earning capacity”).
In contrast, in the case of a scheduled permanent partial
disability

that

allegedly

changes

to

a

temporary

partial

disability because the claimant’s injury flared up, there is no
additional loss of wage-earning capacity.
of

wage-earning

schedule.

capacity

already

is

The claimant’s loss

accounted

for

under

the

In other words, the scheduled compensation accounts

for all the lost wages due the claimant under the LHWCA.
- 21 -

To

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 22 of 31

hold otherwise would allow for an impermissible double recovery.
Cf. id. (“Denying additional [scheduled] benefits to one already
receiving
avoid
whose

benefits

double

disability,

total

recoveries.”).

scheduled

compensation

for

he

Like

compensation
already

Eason’s

permanent

was

disability

the

claim

claimant
was

receiving

temporary

in

by

permanent

disability

to

Korineck,

subsumed

for

partial

serves

the
total

claim

is

subsumed by the compensation he received under the schedule.
Id. at 43-44.
To be sure, in the case before us, there is no record
evidence supporting a reclassification of Eason’s disability to
a permanent total or temporary total disability.

His disability

has remained permanent and partial since September 2008.

His

scheduled compensation is presumed to cover his actual loss of
wage-earning capacity for any flare up of his knee injury that
did

not

prevent

him

from

alternative employment.

working

in

some

type

of

suitable

Green, 185 F.3d at 242 n.3.

Since

Eason does not allege that the flare up rendered him permanently
or

temporarily

totally

disabled,

he

is

not

entitled

to

any

additional disability compensation for his knee injury.
Eason’s argument that the LHWCA permits the recovery of
additional temporary partial disability compensation under the
circumstances

of

this

case

is

unpersuasive.

First,

his

argument, if accepted, permits an impermissible double recovery.
- 22 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 23 of 31

He was compensated for his actual loss of wage-earning capacity
due to his injury under the schedule and now he is seeking
additional compensation for the same injury.
LHWCA that permits such a double recovery.

We see nothing in

See Port of Portland

v. Dir., OWCP, 932 F.2d 836, 839 n.1 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting
that, under the LHWCA, “an employee may not obtain a double
recovery for a disability for which compensation has already
been paid”); cf. Strachan Shipping Co. v. Nash, 782 F.2d 513,
515 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (noting that the “credit doctrine,
created by the BRB for the singular purpose of avoiding double
recoveries,

provides

that

an

employer

is

not

liable

for

any

portion of an employee’s disability for which the employee has
actually
Eason’s

received

compensation

construction

schedule in the Act.
compensation

for

of

the

under

LHWCA

the

defeats

LHWCA”).

Second,

the

of

intent

the

The schedule is designed to provide quick

certain

permanent

partial

disabilities

and,

simultaneously, to fix the employer’s liability exposure.

See

PEPCO, 449 U.S. at 282 (“The use of a schedule of fixed benefits
as an exclusive remedy in certain cases is consistent with the
employees’ interest in receiving a prompt and certain recovery
for their industrial injuries as well as with the employers’
interest in having their contingent liabilities identified as
precisely and as early as possible.”); see also Travelers Ins.
Co. v. Cardillo, 225 F.2d 137, 144 (2d Cir. 1955) (noting that
- 23 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 24 of 31

schedule “conclusively establishe[s]” the loss of wage-earning
capacity and “its extent”).

Yet, under Eason’s construction of

the LHWCA, the employer’s liability exposure is anything but
fixed.

Rather, the liability exposure is subject to increase

essentially any time a scheduled claimant is placed on temporary
work

restrictions.

Such

a

construction

of

the

LHWCA

makes

little sense. 7
We also note that the Director understandably rejects HI’s
interpretation of the LHWCA because it forecloses the receipt of
temporary total disability compensation following the receipt of
scheduled disability compensation.
LHWCA has two flaws.

HI’s interpretation of the

First, it is inconsistent with Benge and

Hord, where the permanent partial claimants were permitted to
receive

temporary

total

disability

compensation

reclassification of their respective disabilities.
F.3d

at

1185-87;

Hord,

193

F.3d

at

802.

after

proper

Benge, 687
Second,

HI’s

interpretation runs counter to the language of the LHWCA, which
says that permanent partial disability compensation (scheduled
or unscheduled) shall be paid “in addition to” the compensation
7

Of course, nothing prevents a claimant who is receiving
scheduled permanent partial disability compensation from seeking
additional compensation to reflect a higher percentage of
permanent loss of the relevant body part due to the aggravation
of the injury that gave rise to the scheduled compensation. See
New Haven Terminal Corp. v. Lake, 337 F.3d 261, 268-69 (2d Cir.
2003) (discussing the interplay of the aggravation rule and the
credit doctrine).
- 24 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 25 of 31

paid for a “temporary total disability.”
This

language

contains

no

temporal

33 U.S.C. § 908(c).

limitation.

Thus,

such

additional temporary total disability compensation can be paid
before

the

example,

as

disability
scheduled
example,
total

permanent
in

this

partial
case,

compensation
compensation

as

in

disability

Benge,

disability

Eason

for
for

received

his

the

compensation

injury

same

temporary
before

injury)

where

the

claimant

compensation

for

her

or

after

after

unscheduled compensation for the same injury).

total

receiving

received

injury

(for

(for

temporary
receiving

The receipt of

such additional temporary total disability compensation ensures
that the claimant is compensated for his actual loss in wageearning

capacity

(including

the

loss

not

presumed

by

the

schedule) and, thus, fulfills the basic purpose of the LHWCA.
See Korineck, 835 F.2d at 44 (noting that the purpose of the
LHWCA is “to provide work benefits for lost earning capacity”).
Therefore, HI’s construction of the LHWCA is inconsistent with
the case law and thwarts the basic purpose of the LHWCA.
We realize that the schedule created by Congress allows for
overcompensation
others.

in

some

instances

and

undercompensation

in

For example, a claimant with a scheduled injury may be

compensated even though he never misses a day of work and, thus,
incurs no actual wage loss whatsoever.
schedule

may

undercompensate

a

claimant

- 25 -

At the same time, the
whose

loss

of

wage

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 26 of 31

earning capacity may be greater than that compensated under the
schedule.

If a claimant who loses a hand only earns 50% of his

pre-injury

salary

after

reaching

maximum

medical

improvement,

the claimant would not, after 9.4 years, be compensated under
the schedule as much as he would have been for an unscheduled
injury.

As

recognized

by

the

Supreme

Court

in

PEPCO,

such

inequities simply are a manifestation of the system created by
Congress which we are not at liberty to disturb.

See 449 U.S.

at 282-83 (noting that “requiring resort to the schedule may
produce certain incongruous results” because, on the one hand,
“even though a scheduled injury may have no actual effect on an
employee’s capacity to perform a particular job or to maintain a
prior level of income, compensation in the schedule amount must
be paid,” while on the other hand, “the schedule may seriously
undercompensate some employees”); id. at 284 (noting that the
fact that the schedule “leads to seemingly unjust results in
particular cases does not give judges a license to disregard it”
where

Congress

employed

“compelling

statutory

language”);

see

also Green, 185 F.3d at 242 n.3 (“Depending on one’s point of
view, this approach could reasonably be seen as either tending
to overcompensate claimants with non-scheduled disabilities, or
as under compensating those receiving payments pursuant to the
schedule.

Nonetheless, despite its inevitable inequities and

the unwieldiness of its application, this aspect of the system
- 26 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

apparently

Filed: 06/02/2015

functions

in

the

Pg: 27 of 31

manner

intended

by

Congress,

as

evidenced by its being left essentially undisturbed since its
enactment in 1927.”). 8
Finally, we reject both Eason’s and HI’s interpretation of
PEPCO. 9

Eason interprets PEPCO as supporting his argument that a

claimant who is receiving scheduled compensation for a permanent
partial
temporary

disability
partial

may

receive

disability

due

additional
to

the

interpretation of PEPCO is quite different.
case

as

foreclosing

a

claimant

who

is

compensation

same

injury.

for
HI’s

It interprets the
receiving

scheduled

compensation for an injury from ever receiving temporary (total
or partial) disability compensation for that injury.
In PEPCO, the Supreme Court addressed whether a claimant
who was permanently partially disabled due to a scheduled injury
could choose to be compensated for his actual loss of wage8

Of course, Eason is on the overcompensation end of the
equation.
He was awarded actual partial wage loss for the May
19 through August 20, 2010 time period at a compensation rate of
$845.82 per week (two thirds of the difference between his
average weekly wage of $1,488.43 and his residual wage-earning
capacity of $219.70 per week).
Thus, Eason would receive
$11,237.22 in actual partial wage loss compensation.
By
contrast, Eason’s scheduled award entitled him to $40,009.13 in
compensation (40.32 weeks x $992.29 per week).
Thus, his
scheduled award paid him $28,771.91 more for a presumed loss of
wage-earning capacity than he would have been entitled to for
his actual loss.
9

The BRB’s interpretation of PEPCO is in line with Eason’s
interpretation of that case.

- 27 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

earning

Filed: 06/02/2015

capacity

under

Pg: 28 of 31

§ 908(c)(21),

rather

than

being

compensated for his presumed loss as provided by the schedule.
449

U.S.

authorize
recovery

at

270. 10

such
for

a

an

The

Court

election,

scheduled

statutory schedule.”

held
and,

injury

Id. at 271.

that

the

LHWCA

therefore,
“must

be

a

did

not

claimant’s

limited

by

the

The Court focused on the

language of § 908(c)(21), which calls for the payment of actual
loss

of

wage-earning

capacity

permanent partial disability.
§ 908(c)(21)).

“‘[i]n

all

other

cases’”

of

Id. at 274 (quoting 33 U.S.C.

The Court interpreted this language to mean all

permanent partial disability cases not specifically enumerated
in the schedule, namely § 908(c)(1) to (20).

Id.

Thus, the

Court held that injuries or disabilities covered by the schedule
must be compensated according to the schedule, whereas permanent
partial disabilities not covered by the schedule are subject to
compensation based on the actual loss of wage-earning capacity.
Id. at 278-82.
The Supreme Court in PEPCO rejected the argument that its
construction

of

the

LHWCA

would

10

not

fulfill

the

remedial

As
noted
earlier,
unscheduled
permanent
partial
disability awards are based on the actual loss of wage-earning
capacity. 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(21). The claimant in PEPCO sought
wage-loss compensation under § 908(c)(21) because his loss of
wage-earning capacity was over 40% and § 908(c)(21) would have
provided far more compensation than the schedule otherwise
allowed. 449 U.S. at 271.
- 28 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 29 of 31

purposes of the Act and that it would produce anomalous results
that Congress probably did not intend.

Id. at 280-84.

The

Supreme Court pointed out that the LHWCA represents a compromise
between the interests of employers and employees.

Id. at 282.

The Court stated that the use of fixed scheduled benefits as an
exclusive remedy “is consistent with the employees’ interest in
receiving a prompt and certain recovery for their industrial
injuries as well as with the employers’ interest in having their
contingent liabilities identified as precisely and as early as
possible.”

Id.

As noted above, the Court also recognized the

incongruous results which the schedule could produce by over or
undercompensating
earning capacity.
that

this

fact

an

employee

for

his

Id. at 282-84.
did

not

give

actual

loss

in

wage-

The Court stated, however,

it

license

to

disregard

the

“compelling statutory language” and that it was up to Congress
to reexamine the statute if anomalies were occurring frequently.
Id. at 284.
Eason’s interpretation of PEPCO is flawed.

The Supreme

Court in PEPCO did not imply, as he posits, that a claimant who
is

receiving

disability

scheduled

can

receive

compensation
additional

for

a

permanent

compensation

partial disability due to the same injury.

for

partial

temporary

The Court merely

said that a scheduled injury does not preclude an award of total
disability.

Id. at 277 n.17.

This is not surprising since a

- 29 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 30 of 31

total disability increases the claimant’s actual loss in wageearning capacity.
with

approval

In any event, just because the Court cited

the

receipt

of

total

disability

compensation

following a scheduled injury, it does not follow that the Court
would countenance the duplicative recovery that occurs when a
claimant receives temporary partial disability compensation for
an

injury

that

the

claimant

already

receiving) scheduled compensation.
does

not

permit

such

has

received

(or

is

As we noted above, the LHWCA

duplicative

recoveries.

See

Port

of

Portland, 932 F.2d at 839 n.1 (noting that the LHWCA is designed
to avoid double recoveries for the same injuries).
HI’s interpretation of PEPCO also is flawed.
PEPCO

did

receiving
from

not

hold,

scheduled

receiving

as

HI

posits,

compensation

temporary

compensation for that injury.

for

(total

that
an
or

a

The Court in

claimant

injury

is

partial)

who

is

foreclosed
disability

Rather, as noted above, the Court

simply held that a permanent partial disability claimant could
not choose between the schedule and § 908(c)(21).
278-82.
scheduled

449 U.S. at

Thus, the Court did not address whether the receipt of
compensation

forecloses

the

receipt

of

additional

temporary disability compensation, and we read nothing in PEPCO
lending support for HI’s interpretation of the case.
In sum, the PEPCO decision is not outcome determinative for
either Eason or HI.

The case addressed a discrete issue, and
- 30 -

Appeal: 14-1698

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 31 of 31

the reasons advanced by Eason and HI for an expansive reading of
the decision are not compelling.

Cf. Korineck, 835 F.2d at 44

(noting the “narrow issue” decided by the PEPCO Court).

III
For the reasons stated herein, we grant the petition for
review

and

remand

the

case

to

the

BRB

to

enter

an

order

dismissing Eason’s claim for temporary partial disability under
the LHWCA.
PETITION GRANTED

- 31 -