Kemp v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.
This text of 805 F.2d 1152 (Kemp v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Ralph Kemp appeals the judgment of the Benefits Review Board denying the award of attorney’s fees incurred prior to his employer’s controversion of his claim for disability compensation. We affirm.
On January 13, 1981, Kemp filed a claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for compensation from Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company for hearing loss. The employer filed a notice of controversion on January 26, 1981. Before the hearing, the parties settled. The deputy commissioner awarded attorney’s fees for services rendered by Kemp’s counsel, including payment for three hours and five minutes of work performed prior to the date the employer controverted liability. The employer appealed the fee award for this time only. In an unpublished opinion, the Benefits Review Board modified the award, finding the employer liable only for fees incurred after it filed its notice of controversion.
The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act provides that an employer is liable for attorney’s fees if it controverts its liability on or before 30 days after receiving notice of the claim and the claimant thereafter utilizes the services of an attorney in a successful prosecution of the claim. 33 U.S.C. § 928(a).1 The Benefits Review Board has interpreted the statute [1153]*1153to limit an employer’s liability to fees incurred after the employer receives notice of the claim and disputes it. See Baker v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 12 BRBS 309 (1980); Jones v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 11 BRBS 7 (1979).
Kemp argues that the Board’s interpretation ignores the fact that, as a practical matter, a potential claimant may require an attorney’s services to initiate a claim. He asserts that the Board’s limitation not only places an onerous burden on a claimant but also diminishes the compensation payable to a claimant in disregard of the Act.2 Kemp relies primarily on the dissents in Baker, 12 BRBS at 317, and Jones, 11 BRBS at 19 (Miller, Administrative Appeals Judge, dissenting).
We may set aside the Board’s decision on this matter only if it is “arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706. If the Board’s construction is “sufficiently reasonable,” it must be accepted, even if it is not the only reasonable construction or the construction this court would have reached if originally deciding the question. F.E.C. v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 39, 102 S.Ct. 38, 46, 70 L.Ed.2d 23 (1981). Although the statute is ambiguous, the Board’s interpretation can be reconciled with the text and the legislative history. Furthermore, it is consistent with congressional intent that disputes be resolved in the first instance without the necessity of relying on assistance other than that provided by the Secretary of Labor.3 See Jones, 11 BRBS at 15-16.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
805 F.2d 1152, 1988 A.M.C. 1517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kemp-v-newport-news-shipbuilding-dry-dock-co-ca4-1986.