U.S. Code » Title 33 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

33 U.S.C. § 927

Powers of deputy commissioners or Board

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The deputy commissioner or Board shall have power to preserve and enforce order during any such proceedings; to issue subpoenas for, to administer oaths to, and to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, or the production of books, papers, documents, and other evidence, or the taking of depositions before any designated individual competent to administer oaths; to examine witnesses; and to do all things conformable to law which may be necessary to enable him effiectively 11 So in original. Probably should be “effectively”. to discharge the duties of his office.(b) If any person in proceedings before a deputy commissioner or Board disobeys or resists any lawful order or process, or misbehaves during a hearing or so near the place thereof as to obstruct the same, or neglects to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent book, paper, or document, or refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed, or upon appearing refuses to take the oath as a witness, or after having taken the oath refuses to be examined according to law, the deputy commissioner or Board shall certify the facts to the district court having jurisdiction in the place in which he is sitting (or to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia if he is sitting in such District) which shall thereupon in a summary manner hear the evidence as to the acts complained of, and if the evidence so warrants, punish such person in the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt committed before the court, or commit such person upon the same conditions as if the doing of the forbidden act had occurred with reference to the process of or in the presence of the court.(Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 509, § 27, 44 Stat. 1438; June 25, 1936, ch. 804, 49 Stat. 1921; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 32(b), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 127, 63 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 92–576, § 15(e), Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1262.)Editorial NotesCodification

As originally enacted, subsec. (b) contained a reference to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Act June 25, 1936, substituted “the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia” for “the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia”, and act June 25, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949, substituted “United States District Court for the District of Columbia” for “district court of the United States for the District of Columbia”.

Amendments

1972—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 92–576 inserted references to the Board.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1972 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 92–576 effective 30 days after Oct. 27, 1972, see section 22 of Pub. L. 92–576, set out as a note under section 902 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1931–2025 · leading case: A-Z Int'l Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Michael James Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
A-Z Int'l Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Michael James Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 5× “A-Z filed a complaint in the district court, seeking, inter alia, enforcement of an administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) order certifying facts and recommending sanctions, pursuant to § 927(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 927 (b)…”
A-Z Int'l v. Phillips, 179 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “In rendering these decisions, the ALJ purported to act pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 927 (b) (“section 27(b)”), which sets forth administrative contempt powers.”
Lewis Gibas v. Saginaw Mining Co. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs & Benefits Review Bd., 748 F.2d 1112 (6th Cir. 1984). “33 U.S.C. §§ 927 , 921(d). Additionally, courts have refused “to recognize in administrative officers any inherent power to nullify legislative [or executive] enactments because of personal belief that they contravene the [Constitution.”
Davis v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 124 F. App'x 1 (D.D.C. 2005). · cites it 2× “” 33 U.S.C. § 927 (b). The ALJ here made no finding of contempt and submitted no certification of facts to the district court.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Steinerfilm, Inc., 702 F.2d 14 (1st Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 2046 (Department of Labor, Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act) (same); 33 U.S.C. § 927 (a) (Department of Labor, Longshoremen’s & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act) (same); 15 U.”
Stevedoring Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Eggert, 953 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1992). · cites it 4× “Finally, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 927 (b), the district courts may punish as contempt of court any disobedience or resistance to a lawful order or process issued in the course of administrative proceedings under the Act.”
Kalaris v. Donovan, 697 F.2d 376 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “46 33 U.S.C. § 927 (1976). The Board possesses only limited powers to issue compensation orders and it must resort to an appropriate District Court to have its orders enforced.”
Jackson v. Smedema Trucking, Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (W.D. Wis. 2008). · cites it 2× “1998), both involved a statute that explicitly authorized administrative law judges to refer issues of “contempt” to a district court in cases arising under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 927 (b), a statute not at issue in this case.”
Wilson & Co. v. Locke, 50 F.2d 81 (2d Cir. 1931). “Section 27, (33 USCA § 927). A compensation order becomes final within thirty days after it is filed in the office of the deputy commissioner unless proceedings to set it aside are instituted.”
Porter v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., 156 F.2d 891 (6th Cir. 1946). “Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 927 , the Court summed up the rule of administrative law flowing from such legislation as follows: “The entire history of the legislation controlling the use of subpoenas by administrative officers indicates a Congressional purpose not to authorize by…”
Horizon Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Albert Jackson (11th Cir. 2025). · cites it 3× “” 33 U.S.C. § 927 (a). They are also permitted to “do all things conformable to law” that are necessary to effectively dis- charge their duties.”
Rashidiasl v. MEP (ESIS/ Arch/ Chubb) (S.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 2× “On February 28, 20 2023, subsequent to the filing of the instant complaint, Mission Essential Personnel, LLC 21 (“MEP”) and Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”) filed a complaint seeking certification 22 of facts and dismissal of claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.