• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
1
All of the individual defendants are employees of the Department of Labor. The Courtunderstands the motion to be made on behalf of the Department of Labor and Alexis Herman Secretary of the Department of Labor, as well.
2
 
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Federal Defendants’ motion on March 27, 2001, elevendays after opposition to the motion was due. SeeCiv. L. R.7-3. In their opposition, plaintiffs, appearingpro se, explain, but have not shown good cause for, their untimely submission. Nonetheless, the Courthas considered the opposition.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIANAOMI OLSEN AND TOM OLSEN,No. 00-3165 MMCPlaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING FEDERALDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT
MS. ALEXIS HERMAN, et al,Defendants.(Docket #s 96 & 117) ________________________________/Before the Court is the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, filed February 27, 2001, by defendants Elaine Chao, Paul O
*
Neil, Bernard Anderson, Pat Lattimore, John Vittone, Paul Mapes, Betty Jean Hall, Harvey Solano,Carol Dedeo, Shelby Hallmark, Michael Niss, Jack Curly, Phillip Williams, Rose Stout,United States Navy and United States Department of Energy (collectively, “federaldefendants”).
1
Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition
2
tothe motion, the Court rules as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Tom and Naomi Olsen, appearing prose, filed this lawsuit on August31, 2000. In their complaint, which is over fifty pages in length, plaintiffs name over fiftydefendants and invoke myriad constitutional and statutory provisions, including the Fifthand Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, as wellas state law causes of action for negligence, fraud, and infliction of emotional distress. Although the complaint is largely devoid of specific factual allegations as to many of the
 
3
 
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the proceedings before the DOL. (See Compl. ¶¶ 108-109.)
4
 
The five defendants are: Rex Scatina, Dennis Babcock, Mr. O
*
Laughlin, David Walker,Controller General, and Lawrence Sumnor, Secretary of the Treasury.
2
defendants, plaintiffs
*
claims basically center around two separate sets of proceedings:(1) proceedings pending before the Office of Administrative Law Judge (“OALJ”) of theUnited States Department of Labor (“DOL”), which proceedings could result in themodification or termination of benefits Tom Olsen has been receiving under theLongshore and Harbor Workers
*
Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 901 etseq; and (2) proceedings before the California State Board of Pharmacy and under theCalifornia Workers
*
Compensation Act, culminating in the revocation of Naomi Olsen
*
spharmacist
*
s license and denial of workers
*
compensation benefits. Plaintiffs allege thatvarious defendants engaged in conspiracies to deny Torn Olsen benefits under theLHWCA and to deprive Naomi Olsen of her “property rights.” (SeeCompl. ¶ 81-82.)Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief (see Compl. ¶ 106-109)
3
as well as damages. (SeeCompl. ¶ 110 -122.)Of the defendants named in the complaint as to whom plaintiffs have filed proof of service, forty-one have moved to dismiss, two, Tierman and Smith, Inc. and David E.Cisek, have answered, and five have not responded to the complaint.
4
Plaintiffs
*
claims against the federal defendants concern Tom Olsen
*
s benefitsunder the LHWCA.
A.The LHWCA
“The LHWCA is a comprehensive statutory scheme governing compensation for covered employees (e.g., longshoremen) due to loss of earning capacity caused byinjuries sustained while engaged in ‘maritime employment’ upon the navigable waters of the United States, or upon designated lands adjoining those waters.” SeeWilliams v.Jones, 11 F.3d 247, 250 n.1 (1st Cir. 1993); 33 U.S.C. §§ 902, 903. Employers subjectto the LHWCA are required, within statutory limits, to compensate their employees for  job-related injuries or deaths. See33 U.S.C. § 904. Claims are filed with the deputy
 
3
commissioner. see id. § 919(a), and any dispute requiring a hearing is referred to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), see id. § 919(d). The ALJ makes findings of fact andconclusions of !aw, and issues compensation orders as appropriate. See 20 C.F.R. §702.348. The Act provides for internal appellate review to the Benefits Review Board(“BRB”), see33 U.S.C. § 921(b). upon timely appeal, see 20 C.F.R. § 702.393. Finalorders of the BRB are reviewable by the United States Courts of Appeals. Seeid. §921(c).The LHWCA provides for modification of awards “on the ground of a change inconditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact.” Seeid. § 922. When anemployer seeks such a modification, the District Director has the authority to attempt tomediate the dispute, typically through an “informal conference.” See id. § 919(c); 20C.F.R. § 702.311 etseq. If the mediation is unsuccessful, or upon application of a partyfor a hearing, the District Director refers the matter to the OALJ for formal adjudicationby an ALJ. See33 U.S.C. §§ 919(c)-(d), 922. Both the District Director, uponagreement of the parties, and the ALJ are authorized to issue a new compensationorder “which may terminate, continue, reinstate, increase or decrease suchcompensation,” seeid. § 922, and in doing so may redetermine the compensability,nature and extent of the injured worker 
*
s disability as well as re-adjudicate theemployer 
*
s liability. See generally Metropolitan Stevedor Co. v. Rambo, 515 U.S. 291,296-300 (1995). Following such a determination, the LHWCA further provides for anappeal to the BRB and ultimately to the United States Courts of Appeals. See id. §§921(b), (c).Under the LHWCA, the Secretary of Labor has the discretion to provide legalassistance to those covered by the Act. See id. § 939(c)(1) (“The Secretary may, uponrequest, provide persons covered by [the LHWCA] with legal assistance in processing aclaim.”); 20 C.F.R. § 702.135(b). The Secretary is also required to provide, uponrequest, “information and assistance” regarding coverage, compensation andprocedures to all persons covered. See33 U.S.C. § 939(c)(1). “The Secretary shallalso provide employees receiving compensation information on medical, manpower,and vocational rehabilitation services and assist such employees in obtaining the best
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...