They Said The Case Was Closed Forever. Years Later The Whole Bill Changed Hands

The TV lawyer on the billboard thinks a final decision is final. He does not know you can reopen a longshore claim after the judge has ruled, after the appeals have run, after the carrier has told you the book is closed. He does not know because he has never read Section 22 of the Longshore Act. He has a secretary and a billboard and a settlement mill, and a man whose case the carrier slammed shut is not worth his time. A real case decided by the Benefits Review Board shows you just how dead a closed longshore case is not.

In Ede v. ICTSI Oregon, Inc., a crane operator hurt his neck on the waterfront in 2013 and had surgery. He went back to work for several different waterfront employers, kept working through the pain, and finally took disability retirement because his neck could not take any more. In 2018, after a full trial, a judge ruled the first employer was responsible and ordered it to pay him permanent total disability for life. Decision issued. Case over. That is what everyone thought.

It was not over. The employer stuck with the bill filed a petition to reopen the case based on new medical testimony. Years after the original decision, the judge took another look, found he had made a mistake about which employer’s work actually aggravated the man’s neck, and moved the entire lifetime liability to a different employer. The Benefits Review Board affirmed. The worker kept every dime of his lifetime award. The only thing that changed was which insurance carrier had to write the checks, and the carriers spent years tearing each other apart over it.

You Can Reopen A Longshore Claim. The Carrier Hopes You Never Learn That

Section 22 of the Longshore Act lets a judge reopen a longshore claim for a mistake of fact or a change in condition. The Supreme Court has said the Act prefers accuracy over finality, and the Board said it again in this case. Read that twice, because it cuts both ways. The employers used it here to fight over who pays. But the same door is open to the injured worker. If your condition gets worse after your case closes, or if the original decision rested on a mistake about the facts, the law gives you a path to reopen a longshore claim and fix it. There is a clock on it, and the clock is unforgiving, but the door exists.

Now think about what the carrier tells injured workers every single day. Your claim was denied, it is final, go home. Your benefits were set years ago, nothing can change them. Both statements are sales pitches, not law. The carrier knows Section 22 exists. The carrier uses Section 22 when it wants out of paying. It just hopes you never find a lawyer who knows how to use it for you.

What This Means On The Mississippi Gulf Coast Waterfront

If you work at Ingalls in Pascagoula, at the Port of Gulfport, or anywhere on the Gulf Coast waterfront, you have probably worked for more than one employer and been around more than one injury. Cases like this one turn on which employer’s work made the condition worse, what the doctors actually said, and whether the lawyer knows the levers inside the federal system. The billboard lawyer cannot tell you whether your old denial can be challenged or whether your worsening neck justifies a move to reopen a longshore claim, because he does not know the question exists. He is built for fast settlements, not for federal fights that run on for years and pay for life.

I am not going to map out the whole Section 22 playbook on a public blog where the carriers can read it. The deadlines, the proof, and the traps are in my free book. If you got hurt on the docks or in the yard, and especially if someone already told you your case is closed, read the book before you believe them.

No pressure. No phone call required. Read it first.

If you were hurt working on the water or in a shipyard on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, you can read more about how I handle a Mississippi longshore case. Ingalls and port workers in Jackson County can also read about how I handle a Pascagoula longshore case specifically. The case discussed here is Ede v. ICTSI Oregon, Inc., BRB No. 22-0400, decided by the U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board. This article is commentary on a published administrative decision and general information, not legal advice about your situation.