20 C.F.R. § 702.373

Modification of awards

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Upon his/her own initiative, or upon application of any party in interest (including an employer or carrier which has been granted relief under section 8(f) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 908(f)), the district director may review any compensation case (including a case under which payments are made pursuant to section 44(i) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 944(i)) in accordance with the procedure in subpart C of this part, and after such review of the case under § 702.315, or review at formal hearings under the regulations governing formal hearings in subpart C of this part, file a new compensation order terminating, continuing, reinstating, increasing or decreasing such compensation, or awarding compensation. Such new order shall not affect any compensation previously paid, except that an award increasing the compensation rate may be made retroactive from the date of injury, and if any part of the compensation due or to become due is unpaid, an award decreasing the compensation rate may be made effective from the date of the injury, and any payment made prior thereto in excess of such decreased rate shall be deducted from any unpaid compensation, in such manner and by such method as may be determined by the district director or the administrative law judge. Settlements cannot be modified.

(b) Review of a compensation case under this section may be made at any time prior to 1 year after the date of the last payment of compensation, whether or not a compensation order has been issued, or at any time prior to 1 year after the rejection of a claim.

(c) Review of a compensation case may be had only for the reason that there is a change in conditions or that there was a mistake in the determination of facts.

(d) If the investigation, described in § 702.148(c), discloses a change in conditions and the employer or insurance carrier intends to pursue modification of the award of compensation the district director and claimant shall be notified through an informal conference. At the conclusion of the informal conference the district director shall issue a recommendation either for or against the modification. This recommendation shall also be sent to the Associate Director, Division of Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation (DLHWC) for a determination on whether or not to participate in the modification proceeding on behalf of the special fund. Lack of concurrence of the Associate Director, DLHWC or lack of participation by a representative of the special fund shall not be a bar to the modification proceeding.

[38 FR 26861, Sept. 26, 1973, as amended at 50 FR 401, Jan. 3, 1985]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1993–2020 · leading case: Williams v. Jones, 11 F.3d 247 (1st Cir. 1993).
Williams v. Jones, 11 F.3d 247 (1st Cir. 1993). “Eschewing conventional res judicata principles, section 922 allows an employer to request the ALJ to reconsider the ease where there has been a “change of conditions” or “mistake of fact” warranting modification or suspension in compensation payments.”
Tramond Bourgeois v. DOWCP (5th Cir. 2020). “§ 922 ; 20 C.F.R. § 702.373 . Finally, the ALJ’s finding that Bourgeois did not suffer from lumbar facet arthrosis was supported by substantial evidence.”
Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Michael Firth Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 363 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 2004). “§ 922 ; 20 C.F.R. § 702.373 . We review orders of the Board for errors of law de novo.”
Newport News Shipbld v. DOWCP (4th Cir. 2004). “§ 922 ; 20 C.F.R. § 702.373 . We review orders of the Board for errors of law de novo.”
Williams v. Jones (1st Cir. 1993). “922; see also 20 C.F.R. 702.373; Hudson v. Southwest- ___ ____ ______ __________ ern Barge Fleet Servs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.