Ramey

Ramey v. Stevedoring Services of America

Good Law
134 F.3d 954·1998 WL 19631
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 22, 1998Nos. 96-71069, 97-70091California3,552 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Skopil, J.

I.

Congress included a provision in the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 -211, 1321-219 (1996), that was intended to eliminate the backlog of cases pending before the Benefits Review Board. Consistent with that legislation; on September 12, 1996, hundreds of pending appeals from administrative law judges’ decisions were summarily affirmed without Board review. Two of those cases are now before us for consideration — claimant longshore workers who sought disability awards due to hearing losses allegedly suffered from exposure to excessive noise on the worksite. One was denied relief upon a finding that he failed to prove the requisite exposure; the other received an award but contested the amount.

Both claimants contend that the automatic affirmance provision of Public Law 104-134 violates constitutional separation of powers principles. Their employers counter that the law is constitutional, and that by virtue of its application to these eases, we lack appellate jurisdiction. We reject the constitutional challenge; the law does not violate separation of powers. We conclude that we possess jurisdiction to review 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.