The United States Supreme Court handed down a decision Tuesday in a workers' compensation case that started in Unalaska. 

Longshoreman Dana Roberts slipped on the ice while working as a dispatcher for Sea-Land in 2002, injuring his back and shoulder.  He received compensation from the company for several years before Sea-Land stopped paying.  Roberts took them to court and a judge ruled that he was permanently disabled and consequently entitled to continue receiving benefits.  Sea-Land resumed payments at the 2002 average wage rate.  But Roberts argued he should be getting paid 2007 wages, the year the court declared him disabled.  

In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court took up the legal question of what it means to be “newly awarded compensation.” On Tuesday the Court ruled that the phrase should be interpreted as meaning “when he [an employee] first becomes disabled.”

The Court found Robert’s main argument flawed. He had argued that allowing employers to pay based on the date of injury encouraged lengthy legal disputes so employers could avoid paying for as long as possible.  The Supreme Court found the flipside to be true and said, “We decline to adopt a rule that would reward employees with windfalls for initiating unnecessary administrative proceedings, while simultaneously punishing employers who have complied fully with their statutory obligations.”

The decision affects longshore workers and overseas government contractors.