Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co.

514 U.S. 122 (1995)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Department of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co.

United States Supreme Court
514 U.S. 122 (1995)

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

The Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) created a system for compensating workers killed or injured on the navigable waters of the United States. The United States Department of Labor was tasked with enforcing the LHWCA and delegated most of that power to the director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (the director) (plaintiff). Injured workers submitted claims to a local office. Administrative-law judges made the initial decisions, the Benefits Review Board (the board) reviewed the decisions of the administrative-law judges, and the appropriate United States court of appeals reviewed the decisions of the board. The director was not involved in any of the adjudication, and the LHWCA did not provide that the director had standing to appeal adjudicatory decisions. Rather, the LHWCA provided that only those parties adversely affected or aggrieved by an agency decision had standing to challenge those decisions with the agency or the courts. Jackie Harcum, an employee of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. (Newport Shipbuilding) (defendant), was injured while working. Harcum applied for benefits under the LHWCA. An administrative-law judge held that Harcum was partially disabled and entitled to partial-disability benefits. The board affirmed the administrative-law judge and further held that Newport Shipbuilding could stop paying Harcum benefits after 104 weeks. The director petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review of the board’s decision. Harcum was not involved in the appeal. The court of appeals determined that the director did not have standing to appeal the board’s order, because the director was not adversely affected or aggrieved by the board’s decision. The director appealed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership