33 U.S.C. § 920
Presumptions
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 271
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1929–2026 · leading case: U. S. Indus./Fed. Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 455 U.S. 608 (1982).
U. S. Indus./Fed. Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 455 U.S. 608 (1982). “(part 2) 1436, 33 U. S. C. § 920 (a), and vacated the administrative denial of disability benefits.”
Bath Iron Works Corp. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 336 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2003). “See 33 U.S.C. § 920 (b). After briefly surveying the facts as found by the ALJ, the Board concluded that the ALJ’s decision was “supported by substantial evidence,” and therefore affirmed.”
Universal Mar. Corp. v. Frank Moore Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Prog. United States Dep't of Labor, 126 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 1997). “, for permanent total disability, we reverse and remand because we conclude that (1) the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred as a matter of law in applying the statutory presumption under 33 U.S.C. § 920 (a) to presume that Moore’s back pain was caused by a work-related…”
O'Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Assocs., Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965). “" Section 20 (a), 33 U. S. C. § 920 (a) (1958 ed.), provides that "[i]n any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary .”
Amerada Hess Corp. v. Dir., Off. of Worker's Comp. Programs, 543 F.3d 755 (5th Cir. 2008). “" 33 U.S.C. § 920 (a). To invoke the presumption, a claimant must make a prima facie showing that (1) he suffered a "harm" and (2) a condition of the workplace "could have caused, aggravated, or accelerated" the harm.”
Lafayette v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 770 A.2d 1 (Conn. 2001). “See 33 U.S.C. § 920 (a); 8 Fleischmann v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 137 F.”
William David Hensley v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 655 F.2d 264 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “” 33 U.S.C. § 920 (emphasis supplied). The Section 20 presumption is but one indication of the “humanitarian nature” of the Act generally, O’Keefe v.”
Truczinskas v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 699 F.3d 672 (1st Cir. 2012). “§ 903 (c), although a rebuttable presumption exists that the injury was not due to intoxication or suicide, LHWCA § 20(c) — (d), 33 U.S.C. § 920 (c)-(d). Finally, it is enough to connect employment with a suffered harm if the harm arose out of a “zone of special danger” created…”
Ortco Contractors, Inc. v. Charpentier, 332 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 2003). “Accordingly, we vacate both opinions of the BRB and remand with instructions that the case be further remanded to the ALJ for reinstatement of *293 the his initial holding, which denied benefits to Charpentier.”
Schwirse v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Prog., 736 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2013). “” 33 U.S.C. § 920 (c) (emphasis added). “[T]he employer may rebut the presumption .”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994). “D In part due to Congress’ recognition that claims such as those involved here would be difficult to prove, claimants in adjudications under these statutes benefit from certain statutory presumptions easing their burden.”
Am. Grain Trimmers, Inc., & Frank Gates-Acclaim v. Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, & Marian Janich, 181 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 1999). “Janich attempted to establish her right to benefits by taking advantage of the statutory presumption created in § 20(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 920 (a). In order to do so, she.”
— 33 U.S.C. § 920(a) — 2 cases
Whalen v. Lowe, 38 F. Supp. 248 (D.N.J. 1941).
Universal Mar. v. Moore (4th Cir. 1997).
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.