*1 MARCUS, Circuit Before DUBINA and Judges, Judge. Senior Circuit DUBINA, Judge: Recovery Appellants, Company, Inc. Oil carrier, Aetna (“employer”) its insurance (“Aetna”) (collectively Company Insurance “Defendants”), appeal entry of default judgment, which held them liable for ty late and Harbor Workers (“LHWCA”) Compensation Act §§ 901-950.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS , (“Pleas- Curtis Pleasant-El ant”), private employer reached a and his Pleasant’s claims for benefits settlement on 19, 1995, under the On June an (“ALJ”) judge signed an administrative approving the settlement.1 On June 30, pursuant governing regulations, filed the order and sent the district director parties. copies by certified mail to the (1997). C.F.R. 702.349 employer’s lawyer received the order July July on full hand deliv- order was inadequate settlement unless is found parties reach a settlement claims 1. When - 908(i). LHWCA, approve procured ALJ duress. See
13Q1 lawyer. supplementary of the Pleasant’s The LHWCA forcement ered to same as in civil suits for provides payment of order the that damages be at common law. See 33 an award of under 918(a). questions filing appeal presents of the This days of the made within only, a the court’s de employer or the will be assessed and thus review is 914(f). Garrett, Pleasant novo. See United States 20% 33 U.S.C. (11th Cir.1993)(challenge Department a constitu the of Labor to issue the asked tionality assessing the of a a of law supplemental order 20% statute is review). and, objections, ty, employer’s the to de over the novo supplemental the or- district director issued requiring pay an addi- der IV.ANALYSIS $12,000. (pro-
tional See 33 that declaring provides “[i]f The LHWCA com- viding supplementary order notice, pensation, payable of an investigation, terms amount of default after award, days it within ten after hearing). due, becomes there shall be added petition a enforce- Pleasant then filed unpaid compensation equal an amount to 20 court. ment of this order federal district thereof____” per centum 918(a). The court See 33 U.S.C. district primary argument ap- The Defendants’ judgment summarily entered default peal day period is that the ten petition employer’s answer to the could of the should calculated under be received considered. Procedure, pursuant Civil Federal judgment sought have the default vacated days to which intermediate weekend hol- Finding that under Fed.R.Civ.P. idays are this method of excluded. Under in ac- supplemental award had been entered counting, would court de- cordance with district timely. By have been reference to various The motion to vacate. nied Defendants’ provisions, the Defendants also perfected appeal. Defendants then this otherwise, argue especially that to un- der the circumstances of this would be II.ISSUES contrary Significantly, unfair and law. primary presented by ap- The this contend that Defendants do not peal days the ten allowed under is whether employed in this case failed dures compen- of a obligation to timely them notice of their are ten business or ten sation order award. addition, days. In Defendants raise flurry challenges of constitutional Scope District Re- A. The A Court’s employed in im- procedures standards Supplemental view Order for late posing enforcing 918(a). payment. They interpreting that require payment within ten calen- statute to The district court refused to consider Equal the Due dar violates Process legitimacy Amendment; Clauses to the Fifth Protection supplemental of the order. imposing the facts of a claimant with the provides that when files process rights; case violates their due this order, declaring supplemental judgment that the manner which the penal consequent amount of default and process rights; enforced violates their due ty, judgment for the the court shall “enter Eighth Amend- violates the by supple amount declared default punish- prohibition of cruel and unusual supplementary if such order order ment. is in accordance with the law.” 33 U.S.C. 918(a). district construed III.STANDARD OF REVIEW grant authority to review the narrow as a merely to ensure that judgment entered 918(a). requirements of petition complied for en with the court on Pleasant’s district (1995). Among the Courts Rev. Bd. Serv. disagree. certainly It true that when only the Fifth Circuit has held payments enforcing day period the ten should be ten busi a district court' lacks days;- of the Fed- pursuant to Rule validity underlying com consider *3 Quave Rules of Civil Procedure. ei’al v. ITT Federal pensation order. See Schmit (5th Marine, F.2d Cir. Progress 912 798 (7th Cir.1993); 1103, 1106 F.2d Elec. Int'l 1990). (In re v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n Abbott Compensation and point, Fifth not- starting' Cii'cuit As Act), Compensation Harbor Workers’ the Federal Rules of Civil ed that Cir.1989). (5th However, here, F.2d or px-oceedings enfoi'cement re- apply challenges pertain exclusive the Defendants’ § compensation orders under view of ly imposition and enforcement of except to the extent that matters gives § and Id. provided for in the at dui'e are general grant of district court 81(a)(6)). (citing Although Fed.R.Civ.P. is lawful. determine whether that order § mentioned in Rule specifically Quave that an order court reasoned Challenges
B. Constitutional
914(f)
“supple-
§
making a
assessment
declaring the amount of the
above, the Defendants have
As noted
meaning
of Section
default within
number
constitutional concerns
raised a
of
(internal
[918(a)
quo-
of the LHWCA.” Id.
]
914(f)
applied
§
t'o
on its face and as
omitted). The Fifth
tations and citations
considering
precluded
them.
are
from
that the Fedei’al
Circuit therefore concluded
arguments. Title 28 U.S.C.
these
Procedure,
including
of Civil
pertinent part
as
states
follows:
time,
computing
should be
method
action,
proceeding in
any
In
or
a court
suit
914(f),
§to
applied
provision
United
United States
governs the circumstances under which
.
any agency,
employee
or
States or
officer
issued.,
default order should be
party,
not
wherein the consti-
thereof is
Fifth
The Foux’th Circuit dismissed the
tutionality
Congress affecting
Act
Reid,
as “tox’tuous.”
rationale
Circuit’s
question,
public
is
interest
drawn
at 202. The
Circuit found that
Fourth
fact,
certify
shall
meaning
days”
plain
of “ten
on its
General,
Attorney
permit
and shall
says—
“[T]he
face:
.statute means what
presentation
States to intervene
pex’iods
ten
that ten
is
hour
evidence, if
is
admis-
evidence
otherwise
day
commonly
understood.” Id. at
as
argument
and for
on the
sible in the
that Rule
201.
Reid court reasoned
constitutionality.
81(a)(6)
does not mention
because the
certification as
Because there has been no
n sectionsthat are enumerated in Rule
required by 28
we must
U.S.C.
require agencies
§§
and
both
give
case to the district court to
remand this
quasi-judicial proceedings
col-
to conduct
Attorney
proper
notice to
General
lecting
payments,
reviewing
and
and
rule
In con-
orders.
Id.
substantive,
trast,
procedural,
not
.911(f)
Statutory Analysis
proceeding
requires
therefore
“pro-
it effect.
Id. Because
not a
Circuits,
and Fourth
as
The Second
ceeding for
of com-
enforcement
review
.
Board’,
as
have held
well
the Benefits Review
orders,”
authority,
pensation
there is no
nor
within' ten
requires
need,
-any
the Federal Rules of Civil
Dynamics
days. Burgo v. General
calendar
apply
(quoting
914. Id.
Procedure to
(2nd Cir.1997),
Corp.,
ry we find goals of the LHWCA. The
tent legislative intention
LHWCA demonstrates encourage employers Aet resort formal adver without Shipping Co. proceedings. Strachan
sarial (5th Cir.), Hollis, 460 F.2d v. friend, PAYNE, by next Natasha N. denied, S.Ct. U.S. GLEATON, Plaintiff- Harriet (1972), overruled other L.Ed.2d Corp. v. grounds, Intercounty Construction Walter, 44 L.Ed.2d see also COMPANY, INSURANCE SELECTIVE (where lia does controvert Defendant-Appellant. pay compensation bility to promptly is to be LHWCA entered). being paid without United States Court Thus, necessary to sub where it has become Eleventh Circuit. dispute formal mit adjudication, rational and consistent require punc policies the LHWCA GA, Reeves, Atlanta, Defen- Beth S. tiliously prompt payment dant-Appellant. awarded.