Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. Pillsbury

54 F.2d 1077

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1932-07-01
Topic: general

WILBUR, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from an award of the Deputy Commissioner. Since this ease was submitted the Supreme Court of the United States has decided the case of Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co., and Maryland Casualty Co. v. Norton, Deputy Commissioner, etc., 52 S. Ct. 187, 76 L.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. Pillsbury. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 1 opinion

CRESCENT WHARF AND WAREHOUSE CO. v. PILLSBURY,54 F.2d 1077(9th Cir. 1932)

CRESCENT WHARF AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY, a Corporation, and Pacific Employers

Insurance Company, a Corporation, Appellants, v. Warren H. PILLSBURY,

Deputy Commissioner of the U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission for the

Thirteenth Compensation District, Appellee.

No. 6563.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

1932

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Central Division of the Southern District of California.

F. Britton McConnell, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.

Samuel W. McNabb, U.S. Atty., and Dorothy Lenroot Bromberg, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and JAMES, District Judge.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an award of the Deputy Commissioner. Since this case was submitted the Supreme Court of the United States has decided the case of Baltimore Philadelphia Steamboat Co., and Maryland Casualty Co. v. Norton, Deputy Commissioner, etc., 52 S. Ct. 187, 76 L. Ed. ___, decided January 11, 1932.

If we assume, as appellant contends we should, that the employee's injury in the case at bar is a hand injury, and if we apply the decision of the Supreme Court in Baltimore Philadelphia, etc., v. Norton, supra, the result would be as follows: Healing period, 32 weeks; no excess under the provisions of 33 USCA § 908, subd. (c) (22); compensation for loss of land, 244 weeks; subtract healing period of 32 weeks, balance 212 weeks; 45 per cent. disability, 95.4 weeks (being 45 per cent. of 212 weeks): Add this period of 95.4 weeks to the 32 weeks for total disability, and we have a total of 127.4 weeks. This is a larger award than that which is appealed from (123.8 weeks).

This would require the affirmance of the order appealed from. This situation is not considered by the attorneys in the presentation of the case, and for that reason opportunity will be given the parties to present their views with reference to this matter within thirty days. If no briefs are filed within that period by the parties, the judgment will be affirmed for the reasons given.Page 1082