Loyola Law Review presents: the neutral ground--contrasting analyses of the application of the longshore and harbor workers' compensation act.
This occasional series presents contrasting viewpoints from two or more of our authors. In this inaugural installment, Ms. Claire R. Pitre and Mr. Carlos A. Benach, a member and a candidate of the Loyola Law Review, respectively, provide detailed analyses of the extent of coverage available under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.
Based on the relevant statutory language, congressional intent, underlying policy, and available judicial precedent, Ms. Pitre and Mr. Benach come to convincing yet contrasting conclusions as to what the limits of that coverage should be. Ms. Pitre endorses a literal application of the relevant plain text, citing the merits in a clear geographical boundary. Mr. Benach, on the other hand, supports the application of a balancing test that would remain flexible to the facts of each case, citing the merits of an approach that can adapt to a changing maritime work environment.
The Loyola Law Review is proud to provide the "neutral ground" where scholars, whether established or aspiring, can come together in pursuit of a common goal--serving the public through legal scholarship.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||EDITOR'S NOTE|
|Publication:||Loyola Law Review|
|Date:||Dec 22, 2013|
|Previous Article:||Reconsidering recusals: the need for requirements for when not to recuse.|
|Next Article:||Muddy waters - clarifying maritime coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.|