Grant v. Marshall

W.D. Washington

Grant v. Marshall

56 F.2d 654, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2004

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington

DecidedApril 20, 1931

DocketNo. 689

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 56 F.2d 654 (Grant v. Marshall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grant v. Marshall, 56 F.2d 654, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2004 (W.D. Wash. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

BOURQUIN, District Judge.

In this proceeding in statutory review of the defendant deputy’s compensation order, the longshoreman’s complaint alleges it is “contrary to the facts and the law,” in that “the order ignored and failed to take into account plaintiff’s disabling condition of arthritis.” But there is no allegation any such evidence was presented to the deputy, and no evidence to sustain the allegation appears, even his order absent.

The statute (Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act § 21 [33 USCA § 921]) provides for review herein, if the order be “not in accordance with law.” As in review of the order or judgment of any special tribunal (and the deputy is in that category), the only issues are error 'of law and whether there is no substantial evidence legally sufficient to support the finding of fact. If the deputy ignores proper evidence presented, it is an error of law; if prejudice results, his order is not in accordance with law, and the court will give relief. See the O’Fallon Case, 279 U. S. 461, 49 S. Ct. 384, 73 L. Ed. 798.

The interveners, employer and insurer, have answered, and without objection the evidence presented to the deputy is submitted to the court. Therein it appears was some evidence of arthritis, but none to bring the case within the rule aforesaid, provided the deputy gave it such consideration as it merited in determining his final judgment. That he did not is the longshoreman’s burden to prove, and be has not.

Proceeding dismissed.

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

BOURQUIN, District Judge.

In this proceeding in statutory review of the defendant deputy’s compensation order, the longshoreman’s complaint alleges it is “contrary to the facts and the law,” in that “the order ignored and failed to take into account plaintiff’s disabling condition of arthritis.” But there is no allegation any such evidence was presented to the deputy, and no evidence to sustain the allegation appears, even his order absent.

The statute (Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act § 21 [33 USCA § 921]) provides for review herein, if the order be “not in accordance with law.” As in review of the order or judgment of any special tribunal (and the deputy is in that category), the only issues are error 'of law and whether there is no substantial evidence legally sufficient to support the finding of fact. If the deputy ignores proper evidence presented, it is an error of law; if prejudice results, his order is not in accordance with law, and the court will give relief. See the O’Fallon Case, 279 U. S. 461, 49 S. Ct. 384, 73 L. Ed. 798.

The interveners, employer and insurer, have answered, and without objection the evidence presented to the deputy is submitted to the court. Therein it appears was some evidence of arthritis, but none to bring the case within the rule aforesaid, provided the deputy gave it such consideration as it merited in determining his final judgment. That he did not is the longshoreman’s burden to prove, and be has not.

Proceeding dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F.2d 654, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-marshall-wawd-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack