Lincoln v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
744 F.3d 911
4th Cir.2014Background
- Steven Lincoln filed a LHWCA claim alleging 10% binaural hearing loss based on an April 11, 2011 audiogram; Ceres Marine Terminals was the alleged employer.
- Ceres filed a notice of controversion and sought additional wage and medical records; Lincoln provided an audiogram and paystub.
- After OWCP officially served the claim, Ceres voluntarily paid Lincoln $1,256.84 on July 7 (one week’s permanent partial-disability pay, reflecting 0.5% binaural loss).
- Lincoln later submitted to an IME that showed 10% binaural loss; parties reached a settlement on October 4 awarding substantially more benefits.
- Lincoln sought attorney’s fees under 33 U.S.C. § 928(a) (fee-shifting when employer “declines to pay any compensation” within 30 days); the District Director, then the BRB, denied fees because Ceres had timely paid some compensation.
- Lincoln appealed to the Fourth Circuit arguing (1) "any compensation" means all compensation; (2) Ceres’s payment was a sham and not “compensation;” and (3) the earlier notice of controversion triggered § 928(a). The Fourth Circuit denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “any compensation” in § 928(a) requires payment of the full claim within 30 days or is satisfied by a partial payment | Lincoln: “any compensation” means all compensation due; partial payment does not avoid fee liability | Ceres: payment of any amount within 30 days admits liability and avoids § 928(a) fee-shifting | Held: “any compensation” unambiguously includes partial payments; timely partial payment defeats § 928(a) claim |
| Whether Ceres’s July 7 payment was sham/non-compensation intended solely to avoid fees | Lincoln: $1,256.84 was a contrived token payment like the $1 in Green and thus not “compensation” | Ceres: payment was tied to alleged disability and based on a calculated entitlement, not a sham | Held: payment was meaningfully tied to claimed injury and thus qualifies as “compensation” under § 928(a) |
| Whether filing a notice of controversion (under § 914(d)) irrevocably triggers § 928(a) fee liability | Lincoln: the employer’s contemporaneous notice of controversion demonstrates refusal to pay and triggers § 928(a) | Ceres: § 928(a) is triggered only by absence of any compensation within 30 days of official notice, not by filing a controversion | Held: § 928(a) does not incorporate § 914(d) or make a controversion dispositive; timely payment controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrepont v. Murphy Exploration & Prod. Co., 566 F.3d 415 (5th Cir.) (partial voluntary payment constitutes “compensation” and moves dispute to § 928(b))
- Day v. James Marine, Inc., 518 F.3d 411 (6th Cir.) (employer’s partial payments can satisfy § 928(a) compensation requirement)
- Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Brown, 376 F.3d 245 (4th Cir.) (interpretation of LHWCA statutory text and context governs application)
- Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 473 F.3d 253 (6th Cir.) (initial payments of disability benefits satisfy § 928(a))
- Va. Int’l Terminals, Inc. v. Edwards, 398 F.3d 313 (4th Cir.) (§ 928(b) applies where employer initially pays voluntary compensation but dispute later arises over amount)