Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Reynolds v. Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp.
Citations: 122 F.3d 37; 1997 WL 431841Docket: No. 96-70852
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 4, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Loretta Reynolds appeals the dismissal of her Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act claim regarding her husband Franklin Reynolds' death, which she attributes to asbestos exposure while employed by Todd Pacific. The claim was dismissed by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) due to unauthorized settlements Reynolds made with other parties in 1983 and 1984, which were executed without Todd Pacific's prior written consent, in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 933(g). This statute, amended in 1984, stipulates that a claimant forfeits the right to compensation if they enter into third-party settlements for less than the employer's liability without the employer's consent. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ's decision without opinion. Reynolds argues that the ALJ wrongly applied the 1984 amendments retroactively and misinterpreted the Supreme Court's ruling in Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., which clarified the meaning of “person entitled to compensation” under § 933(g). The court found that the retroactive application of § 933(g) and the Cowart decision was appropriate, as the statutory language has consistently indicated that claimants must obtain employer consent before settling with third parties to maintain their right to compensation. The ruling emphasized that the interpretation established in Cowart applies retroactively, thus reinforcing the dismissal of Reynolds’ claim regardless of the timing of her settlements. The court also noted that previous interpretations of § 933(g) did not hold precedential value, thereby rejecting Reynolds' reliance on earlier contrary decisions. As a result, the petition was denied, affirming the dismissal of her claim based on non-compliance with the statutory requirements.