Holcim (US), Inc. v. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs

194 F. App'x 206
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 17, 2006
Docket05-60836
StatusUnpublished

This text of 194 F. App'x 206 (Holcim (US), Inc. v. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Holcim (US), Inc. v. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, 194 F. App'x 206 (5th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner Holcim (US), Inc. (“Holcim”) argues that the Benefits Review Board (“Board”) erroneously denied its motion for a stay of an award pending appeal. Holcim contends that, because it does not have a legal remedy to recoup benefits paid in the event the award is later overturned on appeal, see Lennon v. Waterfront Transp., 20 F.3d 658, 661-62 (5th Cir.1994), it will suffer irreparable injury. Holcim’s contention is foreclosed by Rivere v. Offshore Painting Contractors, 872 F.2d 1187 (5th Cir.1989). “Irreparable injury is demonstrated only when the compensation award may be too heavy for the employer [or insurer] to pay without practically taking all his property or rendering him incapable of carrying on his business, or ... by reason of age, sickness, or other circumstances [of the payer], a condition is created which would amount to irreparable injury.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “[t]hat payment of compensation might pose a problem, or even cause serious difficulty is not enough to support a stay. Neither is the fact that the amount paid might be lost if the award is reversed on appeal.” Id.

Realizing that under the current case-law, it cannot prevail, Holcim asks this court to overturn Rivere, or alternatively to overturn our precedent and allow recoupment of benefits in the event the award is later overturned on appeal. We find no merit in Holcim’s requests; accordingly, the decision of the Board denying a stay pending appeal is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

Related

Rivere v. Offshore Painting Contractors
872 F.2d 1187 (Fifth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 F. App'x 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holcim-us-inc-v-director-office-of-workers-compensation-programs-ca5-2006.