Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

McMahon v. United States

342 U.S. 25

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1951-11-05
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that the SAA’s limitations period begins from the date of the injury and not from the date of disallowance of the administrative claim
  • stating that “the mere filing of an administrative claim does not toll [the] limitations” period under the SIAA
  • noting similar constructive-exhaustion provision in regulations governing seamen’s claims against United States for negligence and unseaworthiness
  • the limitations period in the Suits in Admiralty Act runs from the date of injury rather than when plaintiffs may sue
  • "[S]tatutes which waive immunity of the United States from suit are to be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign."
  • “statutes which waive immunity of the United States from suit are to be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign”
  • statute of limitations triggered on date "cause of action arises" incorporates injury-occurrence rule
  • two year statute of limitations contained in section 745 commences on the date of the injury

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed McMahon v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
348 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Statute of Limitations — Seamen's Claims Against the United States Under the Clarification Act, a seaman's claim against the United States for injuries and maintenance and cure that has been administratively disallowed may be enforced under the Suits in Admiralty Act, whose two-year limitation period runs from the date the cause of action arises — that is, from the date of the injury — not from the date of the administrative disallowance of the claim. 342 U.S. at 26–27
  2. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Limitations — Construction of Suits Against the United States Although legislation for the benefit of seamen is construed liberally in their favor, statutes waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States from suit are construed strictly in favor of the sovereign; accordingly, the Suits in Admiralty Act's limitation period is not construed to give a claimant the option to postpone its commencement by delaying the filing of his administrative claim. 342 U.S. at 27
  3. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Limitations — Tolling Where the record leaves uncertain whether the claim was administratively disallowed within the sixty-day period after filing, and the claimant has not raised the issue, a court finds it inappropriate to consider whether the statute of limitations is tolled for a maximum of sixty days while a claim is pending and not disallowed either by notice or by operation of the regulations. 342 U.S. at 28
McMAHONv. UNITED STATES,342 U.S. 25(1951)
72 S.Ct. 17
McMAHONv. UNITED STATES ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
No. 17.
Argued October 17, 1951.
Decided November 5, 1951.
1. Under the Clarification Act the claim of a seaman against the United States for injuries and maintenance and cure, "if administratively disallowed in whole or in part," may be enforced pursuant to the provisions of the Suits in Admiralty Act, which provides that any suit thereunder "shall be brought within two years after the cause of action arises."Held:The period of limitation begins to run from the date of the injury, not from the time of the administrative disallowance of the claim. Pp. 25-27.

2. Upon the record in this case, it is inappropriate to consider whether the statute of limitations is tolled for a maximum of sixty days while a claim is pending and not disallowed either by notice or by operation of the regulations. P. 28.186 F.2d 227, affirmed.
Petitioner's complaint in a suit against the United
States was dismissed by the District Court as barred by
limitations.91 F. Supp. 593. The Court of Appeals
affirmed.186 F.2d 227. This Court granted certiorari.
341 U.S. 930.Affirmed, p. 28.
Paul M. Goldsteinargued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.Leavenworth Colbyargued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief wereSolicitor General Perlman,Assistant Attorney General Baldridge, Paul A. SweeneyandHerman Marcuse.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a seaman, brought this suit in admiralty alleging in the first count a cause of action based on negligence and unseaworthiness, while in the secondPage 26count he sought maintenance and cure. He alleged the actionable wrongs to have taken place in November and December of 1945, but he did not file his libel until January 22, 1948.

The Act which gives to seamen employed by the United States on government-owned vessels the same rights as those employed on privately owned and operated American vessels provides that claims like those of the petitioner, ". . . if administratively disallowed in whole or in part . . .," may be enforced pursuant to the provisions of the Suits in Admiralty Act.1That Act in turn provides that any suit thereunder ". . . shall be brought within two years after the cause of action arises. . . ."2Courts of Appeals have rendered conflicting decisions as to whether the date of injury or the date of disallowance of the claim commences the period of limitation. The District Court dismissed this petitioner's complaint on the ground set up by the Government that it was not filed within two years from the dates of his injuries.3The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed on the same ground, adhering to its view expressed in an earlier case, and, it subsequently developed, in agreement with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.4

The contention of the petitioner is that he could not sue until his claim had been administratively disallowed, and that he had no "cause of action" until he could sue. Accordingly, he argues that the period of limitations cannot start to run until his claim has been administrativelyPage 27disallowed because only then does his "cause of action" arise. In his support he points toThurstonv.United States,179 F.2d 514, in which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in accord with his present contentions.

We find ourselves unable to agree with petitioner and the Ninth Circuit, for we think it clear that the proper construction of the language used in the Suits in Admiralty Act is that the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of the injury. It was enacted several years before suits such as the present, on disallowed claims, were authorized. Certainly during those years the limitation depended upon the event giving rise to the claims, not upon the rejection. When later the right to sue was broadened to include such claims as this, there was no indication of any change in the limitation contained in the older Act. While, as the court below pointed out, legislation for the benefit of seamen is to be construed liberally in their favor, it is equally true that statutes which waive immunity of the United States from suit are to be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign.5Since no time is fixed within which the seaman is obliged to present his claim, under petitioner's position he would have it in his power, by delaying its filing, to postpone indefinitely commencement of the running of the statute of limitations and thus to delay indefinitely knowledge by the Government that a claim existed. We cannot construe the Act as giving claimants an option as to when they will choose to start the period of limitation of an action against the United States. Accordingly, we hold that the statute of limitations runs from the date of the injury, and affirm the court below.Page 28

It is to be observed that the regulations applicable to the filing of such a claim provide that, if it is not rejected in writing within sixty days from filing, it shall be presumed to have been administratively disallowed and the claimant shall be entitled to enforce his claim.6The record filed with us does not disclose when petitioner's claim was filed or, with precision, when it was disallowed. In view of that state of the record making it uncertain whether the point would have any effect on the outcome and the fact that petitioner has not raised the point, we find it inappropriate to consider whether the statute of limitations is tolled for a maximum of sixty days while a claim is pending and not disallowed either by notice or by operation of the regulations.Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS think that, for reasons stated inThurstonv.United States,179 F.2d 514, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the claim was disallowed and would therefore reverse this judgment.

MR. JUSTICE MINTON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.Page 29
  1. Page 26 Clarification Act of March 24, 1943, § 1(a),57 Stat. 45, 50 U.S.C. App. § 1291(a). ↩
  2. Page 26 Suits in Admiralty Act, § 5,41 Stat. 526, 46 U.S.C. § 745. ↩
  3. Page 2691 F. Supp. 593. ↩
  4. Page 26186 F.2d 227;Rodinciucv.United States,175 F.2d 479,481(C.A. 3d Cir.);Gregoryv.United States,187 F.2d 101,103(C.A. 2d Cir.). ↩
  5. Page 27United Statesv.Michel,282 U.S. 656,659;United Statesv.Shaw,309 U.S. 495,500-501;United Statesv.Sherwood,312 U.S. 584,586-587. ↩
  6. Page 28 General Order 32, Administrator, War Shipping Administration,8 Fed. Reg. 5414, 46 C.F.R. § 304.26. ↩