Summary
adopting in full the view expressed in I.T.O. Corp. v. Benefits Review Bd. (I.T.O. Corp. I), 542 F.2d 903, 906-909 (4th Cir. 1976) (en banc), vacated sub nom. Adkins v. I.T.O. Corp., 433 U.S. 904, 97 S.Ct. 2967, 53 L.Ed.2d 1088
Summary of this case from Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.Opinion
Nos. 75-1051 and 75-1088.
Submitted July 28, 1977.
Decided September 22, 1977.
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. 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.
Appeal from the Benefits Review Board.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER, BUTZNER, RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges, sitting in banc.
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).
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).
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.
AFFIRMED.
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).