Contractors, Pac. Naval Air Bases v. Marshall

Full title: CONTRACTORS, PACIFIC NAVAL AIR BASES, et al. v. MARSHALL, Deputy Com'r of…

Court: Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 13, 1945

151 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1945)

Opinion

No. 10992.

September 13, 1945.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division; John C. Bowen, Judge.

Action by Contractors, Pacific Naval Air Bases, and another, against William A. Marshall, Deputy Commissioner of the United States Employees' Compensation Commission for the Fourteenth Compensation District, and another, to enjoin enforcement of an award of compensation for disability. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Eggerman, Rosling Williams, D.G. Eggerman, Edw. L. Rosling, DeWitt Williams, and Joseph J. Lanza, all of Seattle, Wash. for appellants.

J. Charles Dennis, U.S. Atty., and Herbert O'Hare, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., and Leavenworth Colby, Atty., Dept. of Justice, of Washington, D.C. (Ward E. Boote, Chief Counsel, U.S. Employees' Comp. Com., of Washington, D.C., and Herbert P. Miller, Asst. Chief Counsel, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Wm. A. Marshall.

Koenigsberg Sanford, of Seattle, Wash., for appellee Haddon.

Before DENMAN, STEPHENS, and BONE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing a complaint seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the award of the appellee deputy commissioner of the United States Compensation Commission to one Tex Haddon of compensation for a disability from an injury to Haddon while employed as a plumber by the appellant contractors engaged in construction of a military base on Oahu, Hawaiian Islands.

The appellants appeal on the ground that the award was "not in accordance with law," 33 U.S.C.A. § 921(b), and the question of law urged by appellants is that there is no substantial evidence to sustain the finding of the Commissioner that the injury to Haddon was one "arising out of and in the course of employment," 33 U.S.C.A. § 902(2). We are of the opinion that the district court was not in error in holding that there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commissioner. The judgment is affirmed.