33 U.S.C. § 938

Penalties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Failure to secure payment of compensation

Any employer required to secure the payment of compensation under this chapter who fails to secure such compensation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and in any case where such employer is a corporation, the president, secretary, and treasurer thereof shall be also severally liable to such fine or imprisonment as herein provided for the failure of such corporation to secure the payment of compensation; and such president, secretary, and treasurer shall be severally personally liable, jointly with such corporation, for any compensation or other benefit which may accrue under the said chapter in respect to any injury which may occur to any employee of such corporation while it shall so fail to secure the payment of compensation as required by section 932 of this title.

(b) Avoiding payment of compensation

Any employer who knowingly transfers, sells, encumbers, assigns, or in any manner disposes of, conceals, secretes, or destroys any property belonging to such employer, after one of his employees has been injured within the purview of this chapter, and with intent to avoid the payment of compensation under this chapter to such employee or his dependents, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and in any case where such employer is a corporation, the president, secretary, and treasurer thereof shall be also severally liable to such penalty of imprisonment as well as jointly liable with such corporation for such fine.

(c) Effect on other liability of employer

This section shall not affect any other liability of the employer under this chapter.

(Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 509, § 38, 44 Stat. 1442; June 25, 1938, ch. 685, § 14, 52 Stat. 1168; Pub. L. 98–426, § 22, Sept. 28, 1984, 98 Stat. 1653.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1984—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 98–426 substituted “$10,000” for “$1,000” wherever appearing.

1938—Act June 25, 1938, amended section generally, designating first sentence as subsec. (a) and inserting provisions respecting liability of corporate officers, adding subsec. (b), and designating second sentence as subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–426 effective Sept. 28, 1984, see section 28(e)(1) of Pub. L. 98–426, set out as a note under section 901 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1942–2014 · leading case: Davis v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. of Wash., 317 U.S. 249 (1942).
Davis v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. of Wash., 317 U.S. 249 (1942). · cites it 4× “rmed, for example, the employer will not only lose the benefit of the state insurance to which he has been compelled to contribute and by which he has thought himself secured against loss for accidents to his employees; he must also, by virtue of the conclusion that the employee…”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Perini North River Assocs., 459 U.S. 297 (1983). · cites it 2× “If this very case is affirmed, for example, the employer will not only lose the benefit of the state insurance to which he has been compelled to contribute and by which he has thought himself secured against loss for accidents to his employees; he must also, by virtue of the…”
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 925 (1984). · cites it 2× “Finally, there are the enforcement provisions of § 38 of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 938 . It is generally assumed that contractors who fail to comply with the requirements of § 4(a) may be liable for § 38's criminal penalties.”
Billie J. Atkinson v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 838 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1988). “The LHWCA also subjects an employer to criminal penalties for failing to secure payment of compensation and for knowingly secreting assets with intent to avoid payment of compensation.”
DiNicola v. George Hyman Constr. Co., 407 A.2d 670 (D.C. 1979). “Failure to do so is a misdemeanor, 33 U.S.C. § 938 , and subjects the subcontractor to the risk of a tort suit in which his defenses are significantly limited.”
Brink v. Xe Holding, LLC, 910 F. Supp. 2d 242 (D.D.C. 2012). “217 (b); • criminal penalties, imprisonment, and other remedies for failure to pay compensation, see 33 U.S.C. § 938 ; *247 • judicial enforcement of a final compensation order, see 33 U.”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Nat'l Van Lines, Inc., 613 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “’s liability, not at issue here, is based on 33 U.S.C. § 938 (a) (1976). . JA 43-48. .”
Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Jackson, 618 F. Supp. 1316 (E.D. Tex. 1985). “33 U.S.C. § 938 (a) and (b). Having ruled that the plaintiff was wrong in withholding benefits, res judicata precludes a trial based on the same issue.”
Rex Investigative & Patrol Agency, Inc. v. Collura, 329 F. Supp. 696 (E.D.N.Y 1971). “, and provides further that failure to secure such compensation shall be a misdemean- or punishable by fine and/or imprisonment, 33 U.S.C. § 938 . The regulations enacted in furtherance of the statute also set forth specific requirements which must be satisfied in order to…”
Thibodeaux v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 276 F.2d 42 (5th Cir. 1960). “” 33 U.S.C.A. § 938 (a) & (e). And to these sweeping sanctions is added the further one of the withdrawal of limitation of shipowner liability statutes ( 46 U.”
Clanagan v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 558 F. Supp. 209 (D.D.C. 1982). “Defendant further argues that it would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under 33 U.S.C. § 938 (a) had it failed to purchase compensation insurance for plaintiff as it did.”
Jarrett v. Dillard, 167 So. 3d 1207 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). “] 33 U.S.C. § 938 (a) (2012). In Dinh , the injured worker filed a second suit to enforce an award of benefits against the corporation’s chief financial officer, who was not a party to the claim for benefits before the AJ.”
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.