Robert Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corporation (1980)

See Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Pet. 222, 238 (1833) ("Almost every law, providing a new remedy, affects and operates upon causes of action existing at the time the law is passed"); Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F. 2d 85, 93 (CADC) ("Modification of remedy merely adjusts the extent, or method of enforcement, of liability in instances in which the possibility of liability previously was known"), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 905 (1980); 1 J.

See Hastings, 628 F.2d at 96 (“An employer need not pay a claimant more than his current earnings on the speculative possibility that the claimant might have earned money in the future had injury not occurred.”).

The 1972 Con- *634 gress, by its silence, deviated from the past practice of specifically providing for nonretroactivity. 628 F.2d at 92-93 (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted).

Power Co. v. Director, OWCP, 449 U.S. 268 , 278 n. 18, 101 S.Ct. 509 , 66 L.Edüd 446 (1980) (citing Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 94 (D.C.Cir.1980); Tri-State Terminals, Inc. v. Jesse, 596 F.2d 752 , 757 n. 5 (7th Cir.1979)).

Therefore, § 10(c) “explicitly recognizes that the mechanical formula for benefit computation [in § 10(a) ] must be disregarded where the formula would distort a claimant’s actual earning capacity.” Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 95 (D.C.Cir.1980); see also Hall v. Consolidated Employment Sys., Inc., 139 F.3d 1025, 1030-31 (5th Cir.1998).

Therefore, § 10(c) "explicitly recognizes that the mechanical formula for benefit computation [in § 10(a)] must be disregarded where the formula would distort a claimant's actual earning capacity." Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 95 (D.C.

Circuit in Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 93 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 905 , 101 S.Ct. 281 , 66 L.Ed.2d 137 (1980), recognized that extension of the Act’s "protection to certain workers engaged in maritime employment who were not previously covered,” changed principles of substantive law. .

Circuit in Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 93 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 905 , 101 S.Ct. 281 , 66 L.Ed.2d 137 (1980), recognized that extension of the Act's "protection to certain workers engaged in maritime employment who were not previously covered," changed principles of substantive law 2 The Black court cited Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 684 F.2d 111, 115-17 (D.C.Cir.1982) (manifestation of disease triggered statute of limitations for asb…

Cf. Empire United Stevedores v. Gatlin, 936 F.2d 819, 823 (5th Cir.1991) (ALJ has broad discretion under section 910(c)); Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 96 (D.C.Cir.1980) (ALJ's failure properly to use the flexibility provided by section 910(c) is abuse of discretion). 12 The Board's decision is AFFIRMED. * The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) ** This disposition is not …

Under the reasoning of Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 91 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, Earth Satellite Corp. v. Hastings, 449 U.S. 905 , 101 S.Ct. 281 , 66 L.Ed.2d 137 , (1980), an employer cast to pay compensation benefits for permanent total disability is allowed no credit for compensation paid by a previous employer for permanent partial disability.

Because the question is irrelevant to the instant case, we do not reach this issue 43 --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1555 , 84 L.Ed.2d 572 (1985) 44 416 U.S. 696 , 94 S.Ct. 2006 , 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974) 45 105 S.Ct. at 1560 (quoting Bradley, 416 U.S. at 720 , 94 S.Ct. at 2020 ) 46 See Eikenberry v. Callahan, 653 F.2d 632 , 635 n. 14 (D.C.Cir.1981) (calling the right/remedy distinction a relevant one for determining retroactivity); Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 93-…

See Eikenberry v. Callahan, 653 F.2d 632 , 635 n. 14 (D.C.Cir.1981) (calling the right/remedy distinction a relevant one for determining retroactivity); Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 93-94 (D.C.Cir.) ("courts are much more inclined to apply retroactively amendments directed at the remedy rather than changes in substantive rights") (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 905 , 101 S.Ct. 281 , 66 L.Ed.2d 137 (1980).

Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 93 (D.C.Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 905 , 101 S.Ct. 281 , 66 L.Ed.2d 137 (1980).

Under this court’s decision in Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 91 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 905 , 101 S.Ct. 281 , 66 L.Ed.2d 137 (1980), the benefits for a total disability are calculated by evaluating the wage-earning capacity that remains after the partial permanent disability is accounted for.

We have also considered the recent cases of Eikenberry v. Callahan, 653 F.2d 632 (D.C.Cir.1981), and Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 92-94 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 281 , 66 L.Ed.2d 137 (1980), which deal with retroactive application of statutes involving (1) the repeal of the jurisdictional amount for federal question jurisdiction (in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ), and (2) workers’ compensation in the District of Columbia.

It likewise follows that since the BRB’s function is more akin to that of a District Court, unlike other agency’s policy-making bodies, there is little rationale for our affording a deference to its construction of legislation pertaining to the LHWCA. 2 Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, at 94 (D.C.

It likewise follows that since the BRB's function is more akin to that of a District Court, unlike other agency's policy-making bodies, there is little rationale for our affording a deference to its construction of legislation pertaining to the LHWCA. 2 Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, at 94 (D.C.

See also, e.g., Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661, 665 (11th Cir.1990) (applying Civil Rights Restoration Act retroactively on the ground that procedural and remedial statutory changes apply retroactively); In re Resolution Trust Corp. and Ward v. Resolution Trust Corp., 888 F.2d 57, 58 (8th Cir.1989) ("If a case is still pending when the new statute is passed, new procedural or jurisdictional rules will usually be applied to it.”); Hastings, 628 F.2d at 93 (“where Congress fa…

An employer cannot pay for the right to discriminate because no such `right' has ever existed."). [15] See also, e.g., Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661, 665 (11th Cir.1990) (applying Civil Rights Restoration Act retroactively on the ground that procedural and remedial statutory changes apply retroactively); In re Resolution Trust Corp. and Ward v. Resolution Trust Corp., 888 F.2d 57, 58 (8th Cir.1989) ("If a case is still pending when the new statute is passed, new procedural…

See, e.g., ITO Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 883 F.2d 422, 426 (5th Cir.1989); Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 90 (D.C.Cir.1980).

Justice Scalia explained the Court’s “ consistent practice of giving immediate effect to statutes that alter a court’s jurisdiction . . . by the fact that the purpose of provisions conferring or eliminating jurisdiction is to permit or forbid the exercise of judicial power — so that the relevant event for retroactivity purposes is the moment at which that power is sought to be exercised.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 292-93 (Scalia, J., concurring).5 In summary, under Landgraf, a n…

Thus, the statute alters both jurisdiction and the 5 The single dissenting Justice in Landgraf was of the opinion that the presumption against retroactive legislation, “which serves to protect settled expectations,” and which “is grounded in a respect for vested rights,” “need not be applied to remedial legislation . . . that does not proscribe any conduct that was previously legal.” Id. at 296-97 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (citing Sampeyreac v. United States, 32 U.S. (7 Pet…

Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 93 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 905 , 101 S.Ct. 281 , 66 L.Ed.2d 137 (1980).

That does not alter the fact, however, that “where Congress fails to make its intention absolutely clear, courts are much more inclined to apply retroactively amendments directed at the remedy rather than changes in the substantive rights.” Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 93 (D.C.Cir.1980) (emphasis in original).

See Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 91 (D.C.Cir.1980).

See Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 91 (D.C.Cir.1980).

See Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 91 (D.C.Cir.1980).

See Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 91 (D.C.Cir.1980).

Id. at 889; see also Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 91 (D.C.

Id. at 889; see also Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 91 (D.C.

See Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Price, 366 F.3d 1045 , 1052 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that “an employee who sustains more than one type of disability may receive more than one award”); Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Dir., OWCP (Benjamin), 297 F.3d 797, 803 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that, the last employer rule did not apply because “no case holds that two entirely separate injuries are to be treated as one when the first one causes, or is at least partially responsible for, a rec…

See also Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 905 , 101 S.Ct. 281 , 66 L.Ed.2d 137 (1980) (allowing concurrent awards for an unscheduled disability and permanent total disability). 34 .

See also Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85 (D.C.Cir. 1980). . 33 U.S.C. § 908 (c)(21) provides: Other cases: In all cases in this class of disability the compensation shall be 66V3 per centum of the difference between his average weekly wages and his wage-earning capacity thereafter in the same employment or otherwise, payable during the continuance of such partial disability, but subject to reconsideration of the degree of such impairment by the deputy commissi…

Like the amount a jury chooses to set in any verdict, the amount of damages that society sets by statute is a valuation that “understandably changes over time.” Mozee, 963 F.2d at 939; see also Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85, 94 (D.C.Cir.1980).

See, e.g., Hastings, supra, 202 U.S.App.D.C. at 93-94 , 628 F.2d at 93-94 (“Modification of remedy merely adjusts the extent ... of liability in instances in which the possibility of liability previously was known.

Compare American Stevedores, Inc. v. Salzano, 538 F.2d 933 (2d Cir. 1976), and Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 628 F.2d 85 (4th Cir.), cert. den. 449 U.S. 905 (1980), approving the retrospective application of the 1972 amendments. 3 Accordingly, we think that the trial court erred to the extent that its order excused appellee from paying the difference between the benefits payable under the Maryland award and the amount payable for the same disability under the D.