Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. United States Department of Labor

United States District Court, District of Columbia

November 30, 2012

EARL C. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., Defendants

EARL C. DAVIS, Plaintiff, Pro se, Clinton, MD.

For GEORGE HYMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants: Dana Adler Rosen, Robert A. Rapaport, LEAD ATTORNEYS, CLARKE, DOLPH, RAPAPORT, HARDY & HULL, P.L.C., Norfolk, VA.

OPINION

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court for a second time are plaintiff's Appeal of Magistrate Judge Order Docket No. 180 to the Federal District Judge (" Appeal" ) [185], defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Appeal (" Opp'n" ) [186],

Page 2

and plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Opposition (" Reply" ) [187]. Plaintiff appeals the Magistrate Judge's order [182] denying plaintiff's Motion for Clarity [180]. Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge exceeded her authority under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (" LHWCA" ), 33 U.S.C. § 921(d) (2006), by refusing to give proper weight to the findings of the LHWCA administrative complaint process. Id. § § 921(a)-(c); see Appeal at 2. Plaintiff also requests that this Court issue an injunction ordering compliance with its prior order in this case. Id. at 4-5, 17.

In 2011, the Chief Judge of this Court issued an order [189] denying the Appeal. However, that order was vacated after the Chief Judge granted a motion to disqualify himself from this case [198]. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a Motion for " Further Proceedings" as Required by United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia [200] and a Motion to Enforce Administrative Decision and Order Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 921(d) [2012].

Having carefully considered the appeal, opposition, reply, subsequent motions, and the voluminous record in this case, the Court AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's order and DENIES plaintiff's request for injunction. For the same reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motions for further proceedings and for enforcement of the administrative decision and order. Additionally, since there is no longer an active controversy within this Court's jurisdiction, this case will be terminated from the Court's active docket.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Summary of the Case

In 1982, plaintiff Earl C. Davis was adjudicated under the LHWCA as permanently disabled by an on-the-job injury that occurred in 1965, while he was in the employ of defendant George Hyman Construction Company (" Hyman" ). See Director's Response to Magistrate Robinson's July 1, 2005 Order (" Director's Response" ) [117] at 1-2. In 1982, this court entered judgment in the form of an order (" 1982 Order" ) establishing the procedures by which the Mr. Davis was to submit reimbursements to defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (" Liberty Mutual" ) (defendant Hyman's insurance carrier), and the time and format by which Liberty Mutual was to respond. Director's Response Ex. A (copy of the 1982 Order). In 2000, in response to Mr. Davis' ongoing difficulties in obtaining reimbursements from Liberty Mutual, this Court granted Mr. Davis' motion to revive the judgment. Sept. 1, 2000 Order [23]. In 2001, Mr. Davis' motion to hold Liberty Mutual in contempt of the 1982 Order was referred to the Magistrate Judge. Feb. 28, 2001 Order [46]. The Magistrate Judge modified the 1982 Order to clarify the reporting requirements and to provide that Liberty Mutual would be subject to a monetary penalty for delays in compliance with the 1982 Order. Mar. 15, 2001 Order (" Modified Order" ) [50].

Since 2002 the parties have had an ongoing dispute involving four requests for reimbursement filed by Mr. Davis. See Appeal at 8; Reply at 10. These claims were pursued via the administrative process of the LHWCA, including a determination by an Administrative Law Judge (" ALJ" ), an appeal to the Benefits Review Board (" BRB" ), and an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, resulting in a final decision that partially granted, partially denied, and partially dismissed Mr. Davis' claims. See Director's Response at 3-4; see generally

Page 3

Reply Attach. 18-49.0F [1] While the administrative process was ongoing, Mr. Davis pursued an action in this Court to enforce the 1982 Order under ยง 921(d) of the LHWCA, to require Liberty Mutual to respond to Mr. Davis' reimbursement requests in the form specified by the Modified Order, and to enforce the monetary penalty specified in the Modified Order for lack of timely response by Liberty Mutual. In November 2003, the Magistrate Judge ordered Liberty Mutual to submit a detailed response addressing each of the four disputed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.