Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Cardillo, 229 F.2d 735 (2d Cir. 1956). · Go Syfert
Search
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Cardillo, 229 F.2d 735 (2d Cir. 1956). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Huntington Ingalls Industries v. Ricky Eason
4th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
Benefits are payable for a specific duration regardless of the actual impact of the disability on the claimant’s prospects of returning to longshore (or any other) work.”); Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Cardillo, 229 F.2d 735, 736 (2d Cir.1956) (noting that, “as to any schedule loss, there is a conclusive presumption of loss or reduction of wage-earning capacity”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Clemmie M. Henry, Widow of Wilson R. Henry v. George Hyman Construction Company and Maryland Casualty Company
D.C. Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Cardillo, 229 F.2d 735, 735-36 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 950 , 76 S.Ct. 847 , 100 L.Ed. 1474 (1956); Travelers Ins.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Potomac Electric Power Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, and Terry M. Cross (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1979 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Cardillo, 229 F.2d 735 (2d Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 950 , 76 S.Ct. 847 , 100 L.Ed. 1474 (1956); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Cardillo, supra, at 144; Gulf Stevedore Corp. v. Hollis, 298 F.Supp. 426 (S.D.Tex. 1969), aff’d per curiam, 427 F.2d 160 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831 , 91 S.Ct. 63 , 27 L.Ed.2d 62 (1970); Cox v. American Store Equipment Corp., 283 F.Supp. 390 (D.Md.1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bethlehem Steel Company
v.
Frank A. Cardillo, Deputy Commissioner, United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, Second Compensation District
23819.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jan 11, 1956.
229 F.2d 735
Published

229 F.2d 735

BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Frank A. CARDILLO, Deputy Commissioner, United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, Second Compensation District, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 206.

Docket 23819.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued December 22, 1955.

Decided January 11, 1956.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City (Albert R. Connelly and Donald H. Rivkin, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Leonard P. Moore, Brooklyn, N. Y., Stuart Rothman, Ward E. Boote, Herbert P. Miller, Washington, D. C. (Elliott Kahaner, Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.

Before FRANK, HINCKS and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

[*~735]1

Plaintiff brought this action to set aside an award of compensation, under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. The Deputy Commissioner had awarded Philip McDermott compensation for loss of hearing resulting from his employment for fifteen years as a boiler-maker. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that McDermott's impairment of hearing "did not result in any incapacity to earn the wages which he was receiving at the time of the injury." Defendant's answer did not deny this allegation. Plaintiff made a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and defendant made a cross-motion for summary judgment. The district judge denied plaintiff's motion, granted defendant's, and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff has appealed.

2

We affirm. The judgment is clearly governed by our recent decision in Travelers Insurance Company v. Cardillo, 2 Cir., 225 F.2d 137. The loss of hearing is covered by Section 908(c) (13) and is thus one of the "schedule losses" set forth in Section 908. In Travelers we held that, as to any schedule loss, there is a conclusive presumption of loss or reduction of wage-earning capacity.

3

Plaintiff relies on Iacone v. Cardillo, 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 696. But in the Travelers Insurance case, 225 F.2d at page 144, we distinguished Iacone, saying, "In that case, the use of the eye was lost long prior to the industrial accident upon which the claim was founded, and, consequently, we stated that `Industrially, claimant lost nothing by the second injury.' In effect, we held that the Congress did not contemplate compensation for the loss of a previous sightless eye when it made provision for scheduled awards in 33 U.S.C.A. § 908(c) (5)." In other words, in Iacone we held not, as the appellant here suggests, that a schedule loss is compensable only on proof of loss of earning capacity, but rather that the loss of a sightless eye was not a schedule loss under § 908(c).

[*~736]4

Affirmed.