Skip to main content

Dillingham Ship Repair v. United States Department of Labor

9th CircuitMarch 25, 2009No. No. 07-73611
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Fisher, Graber, Smith
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review and upheld the Board's decision finding that Dillingham Ship Repair was not the liable employer under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act for the claimant's asbestos-related death, as Northwest Marine met its burden of proving it did not expose the decedent to injurious levels of asbestos.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A worker died from asbestos-related illness after being exposed to the dangerous material during his career. His family filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits under a federal law that covers dock and shipyard workers. The question was which company should be held responsible for paying these benefits - Dillingham Ship Repair or Northwest Marine, both of whom had employed the worker at different times. **What the Court Decided** The federal appeals court ruled that Dillingham Ship Repair was not responsible for paying the workers' compensation benefits. The court upheld an earlier decision that found Northwest Marine had successfully proven it did not expose the worker to harmful levels of asbestos that caused his death. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows how complex it can be to get compensation when workplace exposure to dangerous substances like asbestos causes illness years later. Workers who have had multiple employers may face challenges proving which company was responsible for their exposure. The ruling emphasizes that companies can avoid liability if they can prove they weren't the source of the harmful exposure, which could make it harder for workers or their families to recover benefits in similar cases.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.