CHARLES EINBINDER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION DISTRICT, APPELLANT,
v.
NOVINGER, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the Deputy Commissioner's award, and the District Court's order setting it aside was erroneous.
The District Court set aside a Deputy Commissioner's workmen's compensation award solely on the ground that it was unsupported by evidence. The appell…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Awards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workmen’s compensation case,1 the District Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s award 2 solely on the ground that his findings were unsupported by evidence.3 Since the District Court’s review was confined to the record before the Deputy Commissioner, we are as well situated as the District Court to determine whether the award is “in accordance with law.” 4 Accordingly we have examined the record in the light of the principles governing judicial review in workmen’s compensation cases 5 and conclude that there is suffi cient evidence on the record as a whole to support the Deputy Commissioner’s determination. The order below setting aside his determination is therefore
Reversed.
BURGER, Circuit Judge, dissents.
. Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq., applicable in the District of Columbia under D.C.Code §§ 36-501 et seq. (1961).
. See 33 U.S.C. § 921.
. The District Court filed neither findings of fact and conclusions of law, nor an opinion. The reasons for setting aside workmen’s compensation awards should be included in the record. And where, as here, the coui-t relies on a lack of substantial evidence, it should at least state which findings are unsupported.
. 33 U.S.C. § 921(b).
. Voris v. Eikel, 346 U.S. 328, 74 S.Ct. 88, 98 L.Ed. 5 (1953); O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, 340 U.S. 504, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483 (1951); Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Co., 330 U.S. 469, 67 S.Ct. 801, 91 L.Ed. 1028 (1947); Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U.S. 280, 56 S.Ct. 190, 80 L.Ed. 229 (1935); American Mercury Ins. Co. v. Britton, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 280, 314 F. 2d 285 (1963) ; Hancock v. Einbinder, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 67, 310 F. 2d 872 (1962); Vincent v. Einbinder, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 246, 307 F. 2d 387 (1962); United Painters & Decorators v. Britton, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 236, 301 F. 2d 560 (1962); Phoenix Assurance Co. v. Britton, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 118, 289 F. 2d 784 (1961).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reyes v. The Sec'y of Health, 476 F.2d 910 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1951)
- Cardillo v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 330 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1947)
- DEL Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1935)
- Voris v. Eikel, 346 U.S. 328 (U.S. 1953)
- Hancock v. Einbinder, 310 F.2d 872 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
- Madge Vinson v. Einbinder, 307 F.2d 387 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
- Gliem v. Dist. OF Columbia, 289 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir. 1961)
- United Painters & Decorators v. Britton, 301 F.2d 560 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
- Am. Mercury Ins. Co. & Royal Indem. Co. v. Britton, 314 F.2d 285 (D.C. Cir. 1963)