title: U.S. Industries v. Director: "claim" versus "condition" in the analysis of workers' compensation cases.
abstract: Under most workers' compensation statutes, an injury must "arise out of " and "in the course of" employment in order to qualify as a compensable disability. In U.S. Industries v. Director, the Supreme Court held that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act must be strictly construed to avoid transforming the compensation system into a form of social insurance. In U.S. Industries, the Court denied a disability claim based on an arthritic condition which was manifested while the worker was at home in bed. This Note contends that the Supreme Court neglected to consider pertinent medical realities when analyzing the causation question. Thus, the decision undermines the overall rationale behind workers' compensation legislation. Nonetheless, the Note argues that the case does not relax the requirement of adequately scrutinizing the causative elements underlying any reasonable claim for disability benefits. An analysis adequately accommodating both medical and legal facts, instead of relying upon the vagaries of statutory interpretation, is necessary to improve the efficiency and fairness of workers' compensation disability determinations.
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Yospe
mesh_terms: D000062:Accidents, Occupational; D001168:Arthritis / Q000209:etiology; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009784:Occupational Diseases / Q000209:etiology; D014481:United States; D014942:Workers' Compensation / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*