Marshall

Paramino Lumber Co. v. Marshall

Good Law
95 F.2d 203·1938 A.M.C. 654·1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4774
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 21, 1938No. 8585California2,257 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Healy, J.

The appellants sued to enjoin a Deputy Commissioner from hearing a claim under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901-950 , and a preliminary restraining order was issued. The claimant, Clark, having been permitted to intervene, filed an answer to the complaint. Subsequently, appellants amended their pleading, and the appellees then moved for a dismissal for want of *204 sufficient facts to entitle complainants to the relief sought. The court ordered the vacation of the preliminary injunction and granted the motion to dismiss. This appeal followed.

It appears from the amended complaint that Clark was injured in January, 1931, while in the employ of appellant Paramino Lumber Company. The other appellant is the insurance carrier for the lumber company. Upon application of Clark, there was a hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, and in August, 1-931, an award of compensation was made. It was determined that the claimant had been wholly disabled from the time of the injury to July 5, 1931, but had recovered from his injury and disability on the latter date. The employer and the insurance carrier were ordered to pay, and paid, compensation for the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.