Section 22.27 Scope of Coverage

• Library: Tort Law 2016

1. (§22.27) Scope of Coverage

This "maritime but local" rule, discussed in §22.26 above, served as the genesis for the original LHWCA. That Act provided, in pertinent part, that "[c]ompensation shall be payable . . . from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States . . . if recovery . . . through workmen’s compensation proceedings may not validly be provided by State law." Pub. L. No. 69-803, 44 Stat. 1426. Nevertheless, the rule’s application failed to resolve the employee’s state versus federal jurisdictional dilemma regarding the nature of the employee’s work. The U.S. Supreme Court expanded the "maritime but local" rule in Davis v. Department of Labor & Industries of Washington, 317 U.S. 249 (1942), establishing a concept known as the "twilight zone," providing for the presumption of constitutionality and resolution of close cases in favor of coverage by the first act under which application was made by the claimant. A further refinement occurred in Moores’s Case, 80 N.E.2d 478 (Mass. 1948), aff’d per curiam, Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Moore, 335 U.S. 874 (1948), holding that the state act governed when a reasonable argument could be made for its applicability, even though the weight of authority was contrary. See also Baskin v. Indus. Accident Comm’n, 217 P.2d 733 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1950), aff’d per curiam, Kaiser Co. v. Baskin, 340...