Battelle Memorial Institute v. Dicecca

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Battelle Memorial Institute v. Dicecca. Read the opinion of the Court — 792 F.3d 214
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided August 5, 2015·No. 14-1742·Errata

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 14-1742

BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE, and VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY,

Petitioners,

v.

SANDRA DICECCA, and DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 6, 2015 is amended as follows:

On page 5, replace the first full sentence on the page with

The petition for our review followed.

In footnote 1, which starts on page 15, replace the first full paragraph found on page 16 with

For its part, the brief submitted by the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, takes the position that this case presents a question of law and thus this court should approve the agency's rule that injuries arising out of reasonable and foreseeable activities are always covered by the DBA. But, although we have engaged in totality of circumstances review, it is really unnecessary to accept either the agency's general rule as a distillation of totality of circumstances cases or the Director's approach as subject to Skidmore deference. We simply have no need to resolve these questions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Battelle Memorial Institute v. Dicecca, (1st Cir. 2015).

Battelle Memorial Institute v. Dicecca (Battelle Memorial Institute v. Dicecca) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.