Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

19232 (1962)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 19232 Visitors: 48
Filed: Oct. 02, 1962
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 308 F.2d 570 Leroy HOLLAND and P. J. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner, Seventh Compensation District, Bureau of Employees Compensation, United States Department of Labor, Appellants, v. HARRISON BROTHERS DRY DOCK AND REPAIR YARD, INC., and Aetna Insurance Company, Appellees. No. 19232. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. Oct. 2, 1962. Morton Hollander, David L. Rose, Attys, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., W. S. Murphy, Lucedale, Miss., Vernol R. Jansen, Jr., U.S. Atty., Mobile, Ala,, f
More

308 F.2d 570

Leroy HOLLAND and P. J. Donovan, Deputy Commissioner,
Seventh Compensation District, Bureau of Employees
Compensation, United States Department
of Labor, Appellants,
v.
HARRISON BROTHERS DRY DOCK AND REPAIR YARD, INC., and Aetna
Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 19232.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 2, 1962.

Morton Hollander, David L. Rose, Attys, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., W. S. Murphy, Lucedale, Miss., Vernol R. Jansen, Jr., U.S. Atty., Mobile, Ala,, for appellants.

Alexander Foreman, Jr., Alton R. Brown, Jr., Mobile, Ala., for appellees.

Before HUTCHESON, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The district court held that Leroy holland, employed as a laborer by Harrison Brothers, could not recover under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Accordingly, the district court set aside the award of compensation made by the Deputy Commissioner as unlawful and beyond his jurisdiction and entered judgment for the plaintiffs.

2

On appeal, this Court, in the circumstances of the case, relying on Calbeck v. Travelers Ins. Co., 1962, 370 U.S. 114, 82 S. Ct. 1196, 8 L. Ed. 2d 368, reversed the district court. On rehearing, we reaffirm our original holding, but we are of the opinion that the case should be remanded since the district court did not go beyond the jurisdictional issue.

3

Accordingly, we grant the petition for rehearing and herewith modify our earlier judgment to the extent that we order the case remanded for the district court to determine (1) the causal connection, if any, between the claimant's injury of June 20, 1957 and his physical condition subsequent to September 3, 1957 and (2) whether substantial evidence supports the findings that the claimant was temporarily partially disabled for a period and continues to be temporarily totally disabled.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer