Upon his own initiative, or upon the application of any party in interest (including an employer or carrier which has been granted relief under section 908(f) of this title), on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact by the deputy commissioner, the deputy commissioner may, at any time prior to one 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 one year after the rejection of a claim, review a compensation case (including a case under which payments are made pursuant to section 944(i) of this title) in accordance with the procedure prescribed in respect of claims in section 919 of this title, and in accordance with such section issue a new compensation order which may terminate, continue, reinstate, increase, or decrease such compensation, or award compensation. Such new order shall not affect any compensation previously paid, except that an award increasing the compensation rate may be made effective from the date of the 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 deputy commissioner with the approval of the Secretary. This section does not authorize the modification of settlements.
Notes of Decisions
Metro. Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121 (1997).
· cites it 11× “As a consequence, Metropolitan moved in 1989 to modify Rambo's earlier disability award, see § 22, 33 U. S. C. § 922 , and a hearing was held before an ALJ.”
Metro. Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 515 U.S. 291 (1995).
· cites it 12× “1437 , as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 922 , allows for modification of a disability award *293 "on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact.”
Crowe Ex Rel. Crowe v. Zeigler Coal Co., 646 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 12× “33 U.S.C. § 922 . [1] Also, DOL regulations promulgated pursuant to the BLBA permit any interested person to become a party to a proceeding concerning an award of black lung benefits.”
Arkansas Coals, Inc. v. Albert Lawson, 739 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 8× “Reconsideration of the Responsible Operator Designation Is Not Prohibited by the Longshore Act Arkansas Coals contends that the Long-shore Act and principles of finality block reconsideration of the responsible operator designation and offers three arguments: 1) 33 U.S.C. § 922…”
Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Milliken, 200 F.3d 942 (6th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 10× “, 33 U.S.C. § 922 . If the alleged mistake was made by the ALJ, the district director lacks the authority to correct it, even though the statute and regulations require that the request for modification be addressed to the district director and then forwarded to the Office of…”
Wheeler v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 637 F.3d 280 (4th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 3× “33 U.S.C. § 922 (emphasis added). At issue here is the meaning of the term “compensation” in the emphasized portion of the statute, which effectively sets a statute of limitations for reopening a compensation order.”
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.