Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Britton

D.C. Circuit

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Britton

243 F.2d 659, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 236

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 1957

DocketNo. 13477

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 F.2d 659 (Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Britton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Britton, 243 F.2d 659, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 236 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of the-District Court granting defendants’ (ap-pellees’) motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs’ (appellants’) complaint for mandatory injunction to-restrain the enforcement of a workmen’s-compensation award.¹

In this case the Deputy Commissioner-made findings that the employee suffered1 a permanent partial disability and a consequent loss of actual and potential wage-earning capacity. He also found that, the employee’s post-injury wages do not. fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity, and therefore fixed the wage-earning capacity at $54.90. The-award was based thereon, although wages-actually received before and after the injury were higher than this figure.² See 33 U.S.C.A. § 908(h). This conclusion, like a determination of whether-[660]*660certain conduct is covered by the Act, “concerns a combination of happenings and the inferences drawn from them. In part, at least, the inferences presuppose applicable standards for assessing the simple, external facts. Yet the standards are not so severable from the experience of industry nor of such a nature as to be peculiarly appropriate for independent judicial ascertainment as ‘questions of law.’ ” O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 1951, 340 U.S. 504, 507-508, 71 S.Ct. 470, 472, 95 L.Ed. 483.

On the record as a whole, the District Court found no reason to disturb the Deputy Commissioner’s determination, nor do we. See Annotation, 149 A.L.R. 413; 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law § 57.31 and passim (1952). Accordingly, the j'udgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of the-District Court granting defendants’ (ap-pellees’) motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs’ (appellants’) complaint for mandatory injunction to-restrain the enforcement of a workmen’s-compensation award.¹

In this case the Deputy Commissioner-made findings that the employee suffered1 a permanent partial disability and a consequent loss of actual and potential wage-earning capacity. He also found that, the employee’s post-injury wages do not. fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity, and therefore fixed the wage-earning capacity at $54.90. The-award was based thereon, although wages-actually received before and after the injury were higher than this figure.² See 33 U.S.C.A. § 908(h). This conclusion, like a determination of whether-[660]*660certain conduct is covered by the Act, “concerns a combination of happenings and the inferences drawn from them. In part, at least, the inferences presuppose applicable standards for assessing the simple, external facts. Yet the standards are not so severable from the experience of industry nor of such a nature as to be peculiarly appropriate for independent judicial ascertainment as ‘questions of law.’ ” O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 1951, 340 U.S. 504, 507-508, 71 S.Ct. 470, 472, 95 L.Ed. 483.

On the record as a whole, the District Court found no reason to disturb the Deputy Commissioner’s determination, nor do we. See Annotation, 149 A.L.R. 413; 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law § 57.31 and passim (1952). Accordingly, the j'udgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 F.2d 659, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberty-mutual-insurance-v-britton-cadc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack