The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed an order from the Benefits Review Board awarding interest on longshore benefits granted to a claimant. While the employer did not dispute paying the benefits, it argued interest was improper because the Longshore Act is silent on interest payments. However, the court and other circuits have permitted such interest awards, reasoning employers have use of money owed to claimants once compensation is due but unpaid. Therefore, assessing interest on past due compensation was appropriate in this case.
United States of America, Ex Rel. Rent It Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant, 988 F.2d 88, 10th Cir. (1993)
Savage Industries, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. American Pulverizer Company, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Chris Griesedieck, Defendant-Counter-Claimant, 103 F.3d 145, 10th Cir. (1996)
33 Ucc rep.serv.2d 791, prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 15,107 2-J Corporation T/a Dr. Feelgoode's v. William E. Tice, Iii, T/a Tice Construction Company Jewell Building Systems, Inc, 126 F.3d 539, 3rd Cir. (1997)
Clifford Stewart Donna A. Stewart v. Freeport-Mcmoran Oil & Gas Company, a Delaware Corporation, Successor to Fpco Oil Gas Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Successor to Petro Lewis Corporation, a Colorado Corporation Tom Benjamin Martinez Stephen P. Coonts John I. Seckman Shirley Grantham David Hein June Turnbull Hein Holme, Roberts & Owen David H. Zook Gene Welch John M. Kramer John Dennis Doyle John Does I to Xxv, 986 F.2d 1429, 10th Cir. (1992)
Norman's Heritage Real Estate Company, D/B/A Realty World - Norman's Heritage Real Estate Company v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 727 F.2d 911, 10th Cir. (1984)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed an order from the Benefits Review Board awarding interest on longshore benefits granted to a claimant. While the employer did not dispute paying the benefits, it argued interest was improper because the Longshore Act is silent on interest payments. However, the court and other circuits have permitted such interest awards, reasoning employers have use of money owed to claimants once compensation is due but unpaid. Therefore, assessing interest on past due compensation was appropriate in this case.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed an order from the Benefits Review Board awarding interest on longshore benefits granted to a claimant. While the employer did not dispute paying the benefits, it argued interest was improper because the Longshore Act is silent on interest payments. However, the court and other circuits have permitted such interest awards, reasoning employers have use of money owed to claimants once compensation is due but unpaid. Therefore, assessing interest on past due compensation was appropriate in this case.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed an order from the Benefits Review Board awarding interest on longshore benefits granted to a claimant. While the employer did not dispute paying the benefits, it argued interest was improper because the Longshore Act is silent on interest payments. However, the court and other circuits have permitted such interest awards, reasoning employers have use of money owed to claimants once compensation is due but unpaid. Therefore, assessing interest on past due compensation was appropriate in this case.
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELOAH EL-EMANU-EL; DIRECTOR, No. 96-2345 OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (93-2347) Submitted: August 29, 1997 Decided: September 19, 1997 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Richard W. Scheiner, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Bernard G. Link, Lutherville, Maryland, for Respondents. _________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Bethlehem Steel Corporation ("Bethlehem Steel") petitions for review of a decision and order of the Benefits Review Board affirming an order of an Administrative Law Judge that awarded interest on benefits granted to Eloah El-Emanu-El under the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act ("the Act"), 33 U.S.C.A. 901-950 (West 1986 & Supp. 1997). Although Bethlehem Steel does not dispute the grant of benefits, it contends that the award of interest was improper. Based on precedent in this court and other circuits, we disagree. Consequently, we affirm. As Bethlehem Steel correctly notes, the Act is silent regarding interest payments on past due compensation awards. However, courts that have addressed this issue, including this court, have permitted such awards. See Sea-land Serv., Inc. v. Barry , 41 F.3d 903, 910-11 (3d Cir. 1994); Foundation Const., Inc. v. Director, 950 F.2d 621, 625 (9th Cir. 1991); Quave v. Progress Marine , 912 F.2d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 1990); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Director, 594 F.2d 986, 987 (4th Cir. 1979); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Graham, 573 F.2d 167, 171 (4th Cir. 1978). Assessment of interest in these situations is proper because after the compensation is due but unpaid, the employer has use of money owed to the claimant. See Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Director, 594 F.2d at 987. Accordingly, the assessment of interest on past due compensation was appropriate in this case. For this reason, we affirm the order of the Benefits Review Board. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
United States of America, Ex Rel. Rent It Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant, 988 F.2d 88, 10th Cir. (1993)
Savage Industries, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. American Pulverizer Company, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Chris Griesedieck, Defendant-Counter-Claimant, 103 F.3d 145, 10th Cir. (1996)
33 Ucc rep.serv.2d 791, prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 15,107 2-J Corporation T/a Dr. Feelgoode's v. William E. Tice, Iii, T/a Tice Construction Company Jewell Building Systems, Inc, 126 F.3d 539, 3rd Cir. (1997)
Clifford Stewart Donna A. Stewart v. Freeport-Mcmoran Oil & Gas Company, a Delaware Corporation, Successor to Fpco Oil Gas Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Successor to Petro Lewis Corporation, a Colorado Corporation Tom Benjamin Martinez Stephen P. Coonts John I. Seckman Shirley Grantham David Hein June Turnbull Hein Holme, Roberts & Owen David H. Zook Gene Welch John M. Kramer John Dennis Doyle John Does I to Xxv, 986 F.2d 1429, 10th Cir. (1992)
Norman's Heritage Real Estate Company, D/B/A Realty World - Norman's Heritage Real Estate Company v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 727 F.2d 911, 10th Cir. (1984)