Dinh v. Stalker
In April of 2002, Sau Dinh was injured while working aboard a barge for KYE, Inc. Dinh's employer, Structure Services (Structure), entered into an employment out-source agreement with KYE and in that agreement agreed to indemnify and hold KYE harmless for any claim due to negligence or injuries to their employees.
Dinh filed suit for his injuries against KYE but a court found that he was precluded from pursuing a tort claim against KYE because he was a borrowed employee. Before dismissing this suit, however, the Louisiana Commerce and Trade Association-Self Insurers' Fund (LCTA) intervened seeking to recover the payments it made to Dinh as Structure's insurer.
After the dismissal of Dinh's suit, KYE was granted a dismissal of LCTA's intervention suit. The court granted the dismissal on the grounds that the contract between KYE and Structure provided that Structure would indemnify KYE for the compensation payments and that LCTA lacked any basis for recovering DInh's compensation benefits. After dismissal of it's claim, LCTA ceased payment of Dinh's benefits.
Dinh then sought benefits under the LHWCA from KYE, under the borrowed employee doctrine. The Administrative Law Judge determined KYE, which was no longer in business, to be liable under the LHWCA. The ALJ then had to address the issue of whether LTCA as the insurer of Structure had to cover KYE because of the out-source agreement. The ALJ declined to rule on the issue for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but the issue was ultimately resolved in favor of LTCA by a Louisiana state court.
Dinh finally sought to enforce the ALJ's ruling against KYE and several other parties including Geoffrey Stalker, Joseph Hebert, and Raymundo Groot, alleged officers of KYE. Hebert filed a motion to dismiss of Dinh's claims claiming he was denied due process because he was not provided with notice of or served with Mr. Dinh's compensation's claim, the March 13, 2006 compensation order cannot be enforced against him.Does the failure to provide notice to an officer of a company prohibit the claimant from enforcing a judgment against the defendant that was not properly served?
The Court explained that the administrative law judge must give notice of the hearing, pursuant to Section 19(c), to all potentially liable entities, both corporate and individual, as well as to claimant and the Director, at their proper addresses by a trackable mailing system. And that the failure to comply with these notice requirements is fatal to any attempt to hold the party liable for LHWCA benefits because it violated the rudimentary demands of due process of law. See Tazco, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Program, United States Department of Labor, 895 F.2d 949, 950 (4th Cir.1990). After reviewing the record of the ALJ's decision, the Court found no evidence that Hebert was a party to the claim or received notice of Dinh's claim. As such, the Cout granted Hebert's motion to dismiss.
An administrative law judge must give notice of the hearing, pursuant to Section 19(c), to all potentially liable entities, both corporate and individual, as well as to claimant and the Director, at their proper addresses by a trackable mailing system.
<< PREVNEXT >>
