Sun Ship, Inc. v. Pennsylvania
65 L. Ed. 2d 458, 100 S.Ct. 2432, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 50 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), as amended in 1972, does not preempt state workers' compensation laws for land-based injuries. Instead, the LHWCA establishes a system of concurrent federal and state jurisdiction, supplementing rather than supplanting state remedies.
Facts:
- Sun Ship, Inc. is a shipbuilding and ship repair company located on the Delaware River, a navigable waterway in Pennsylvania.
- Five employees of Sun Ship were injured while engaged in shipbuilding or ship repair activities.
- The injuries occurred on land at the shipyard, not over the water.
- These injuries took place after the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) went into effect.
- The employees' injuries were covered by the federal LHWCA.
- The injuries were also potentially covered under the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Five employees of Sun Ship, Inc. filed claims for benefits under the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act with state authorities.
- Sun Ship, Inc. challenged the claims, arguing that the federal LHWCA provided the exclusive remedy.
- The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, an administrative appellate body, affirmed the awards to the employees, ruling that the LHWCA did not preempt state law.
- Sun Ship, Inc. appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the Board's decision.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court, denied Sun Ship, Inc.'s petitions for allowance of appeal.
- Sun Ship, Inc. then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), as amended in 1972, preempt a state from applying its own workers' compensation scheme to land-based injuries that are also covered by the federal Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No, the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), as amended in 1972, does not preempt state workers' compensation laws for land-based injuries, as Congress intended for concurrent jurisdiction to exist. The Court's reasoning is grounded in the historical context of maritime compensation law, which had evolved to embrace concurrent jurisdiction in the 'twilight zone' to save injured workers from the peril of making an incorrect jurisdictional guess. The 1972 amendments extended LHWCA coverage landward, and the Court concluded that this extension was meant to supplement, not supplant, state remedies, especially since state regulatory interest is even stronger on land than on water. The Court interpreted the deletion of the statutory phrase 'if recovery...may not validly be provided by State law' as reinforcing concurrent jurisdiction, reasoning that removing language that arguably supported exclusivity could not logically be interpreted as mandating exclusivity. Furthermore, the legislative history shows Congress's intent was to 'upgrade the benefits' for workers and establish a federal minimum, a policy that is consistent with, not undermined by, concurrent state jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of concurrent state and federal jurisdiction for workers' compensation claims arising from land-based maritime employment. By rejecting a federal preemption argument, the Court prioritized the remedial purpose of the LHWCA, ensuring injured workers are not deprived of benefits due to complex jurisdictional lines. The ruling establishes that the 1972 LHWCA amendments created a federal floor for compensation, allowing workers to seek more generous benefits available under state law without being forced into an exclusive federal system. This reinforces a judicial preference against finding federal preemption of traditional state regulatory areas, like workers' compensation, absent a clear and manifest congressional purpose to do so.
