Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment
Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Harris
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided July 16, 1998No. Nos. 97-2155, 97-2161, 97-2163Published
1Concurring in the judgmentMurnaghan, Circuit Judge
I accept the Director’s interpretation of 33 U.S.C. § 928 that an employer is liable for pre-controversion attorneys’ fees, but only for services performed after the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs recommended that the claimant was not eligible for benefits. Great deference is owed to the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs when interpreting provisions regarding which he has policymaking authority. See Weyher/Livsey Constructors, Inc. v. Prevetire, 27 F.3d 985, 987 (4th Cir.1994) (explaining that we “afford deference to the Director’s interpretation of the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- City of Burlington v. DagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Federal Election Commission v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Mullins Coal Co. of Va. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation ProgramsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.