U.S. Indus./Fed. Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep't of Lab., 455 U.S. 608 (1982)

Apparently, it is undisputed that Riley is permanently and totally disabled. Brief for Respondent Riley 5, n.

The form continues with a further instruction: "Relate the events which resulted in the injury or occupational disease. Tell what the injured was doing at the time of the accident. Tell what happened and how it happened. Name any objects or substances involved and tell how they were involved. Give full details on all factors which led or contributed to the accident. If more space is needed, continue on reverse." App. 111.

The cases cited by the Court of Appeals do not support this proposition. In Butler v. District Parking Management Co., 124 U. S. App. D. C. 195, 363 F. 2d 682 (1966), the claimant became ill at work and the illness was diagnosed as a schizophrenic reaction. In Wheatley v. Adler, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 177, 407 F. 2d 307 (1968), the employee collapsed from a heart attack at work. In Mitchell v. Woodworth, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 21, 449 F. 2d 1097 (1971), the employee died of a cerebral vascular accident shortly after collapsing at work.

We need not resolve that debate in this case. It seems fair to assume, however, that the § 20(a) presumption is of the same nature as the presumption created by§ 20(d) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 920(d), as construed in Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U. S. 280, 285-287, and the presumption de-

"This statement must be more than a mere declaration that the employee has received an injury or is suffering from an illness that is related to his employment; it must contain enough details about the nature and extent of the injury or disease to allow the employer to conduct a prompt and complete investigation of the claim so that no prejudice will ensue." lA E. Jhirad, A. Sann, N. Golden, & B. Chase, Benedict on Admiralty §71, p. 4-5 (7th ed. 1981).

See generally F. James & G. Hazard, Civil Procedure § 2.1 (2d ed. 1977). Of course, the workmen's compensation process is much more simplified than modern civil litigation. Indeed, this is one of the hallmarks of the system: "The adjective law of workmen's compensation, like the substantive, takes its tone from the beneficent and remedial character of the legislation. Procedure is generally summary and informal. . . . The whole idea is to get away from the cumbersome procedures and technicalities of pleading, and to reach a right decision by the shortest and quickest possible route. . . . On the other hand, as every lawyer knows, there is a point beyond which the sweeping-aside of 'technicalities' cannot go, since evidentiary and procedural rules usually have an irreducible hard core of necessary function that cannot be dispensed with in any orderly investigation of the merits of a case." 3 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 78.10, p. 15-2 (1976). Professor Larson writes that an informal substitute for a claim may be acceptable if it "identiflies] the claimant, indicate[s] that a compensable injury has occurred, and convey[s] the idea that compensation is expected," id., § 78.11, p. 15-9; that "considerable liberality is usually shown in allowing amendment of pleadings to correct ... defects," unless the "effect is one of undue surprise or prejudice to the opposing party," id., at 15-11; and that "wide latitude is allowed" as to variance between pleading and proof, "[b]ut if the variance is so great that the defendant is prejudiced by having to deal at the hearing with an injury entirely different from the one pleaded, the variance may be held fatal," id., at 15-13-15-14. Riley had the benefit of these liberal pleading rules; nonetheless, the Court of Appeals applied the statutory presumption to a claim that was not fairly supported by the existing claim or by the evidentiary record. As Professor Larson warns, "[nJo amount of informality can alter the elementary requirement that the claimant allege and prove the substance of all essential elements in his case." Id., at 15-12.

"If the employer or carrier declines to pay any compensation on or before the thirtieth day after receiving written notice of a claim for compensation having been filed from the deputy commissioner, on the ground that there is no liability for compensation within the provisions of this chapter and the person seeking benefits shall thereafter have utilized the services of an attorney at law in the successful prosecution of his claim, there shall be awarded, in addition to the award of compensation, in a compensation order, a reasonable attorney's fee against the employer or carrier in an amount approved by the deputy commissioner, Board, or court, as the case may be. which shall be paid directly by the employer or carrier to the attorney for the claimant in a lump sum after the compensation order becomes final." 33 U. S. C. § 928(a).

See, e.g., Ward & Gow v. Krinsky, 259 U.S. 503; Thom v. Sinclair, [1917] A. C. 127; lA Benedict on Admiralty, supra, § 43; 1 A. Larson, supra, § 6.10, at 3-2-3-3 (1978).

The Act was enacted to create a federal workmen's compensation statute for maritime employments after this Court held that state workmen's compensation statutes constitutionally could not apply to injured maritime workers. See generally Nogueira v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 281

It may be that the opinion for the Court of Appeals suffered from failing to distinguish between the use of the term "injury" in its ordinary meaning, and in its specialized meaning under the Act. See 33 U. S. C. § 902(2). But there is absolutely no basis for the suggestion in Part II of the Court's opinion that the Court of Appeals thought it sufficient to ground a compensation claim on an "injury" that "arose in bed, not in the course of employment." Ante, at 616. The suggestion is plainly wrong; virtually every aspect of the opinion for the Court of Appeals reaffirms that the issue before the Administrative Law Judge and the Benefits Review Board was whether there existed some causal connection between the claimant's disability and his employment.

In practice, the two tests of "arising out of" and "in the course of" tend to merge into a single determination of work-relatedness. See IA A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation §§ 29.00-29.10, pp. 5-354-5-357 (1979). The dissenting member of the Benefits Review Board Panel thus properly described "the real issue in this case" as "whether claimant's injury is causally related to his employment." 9 BRBS 936, 940 (1979).

It is surely plausible that there was a causal relation between the exacerbation of Riley's arthritic neck condition and the overhead sheet metal duct work that he was engaged in until the night he awoke in bed in pain. But however logical this connection might be in some lay sense, it could hardly assure Riley of recovery. The term "substantial" is relative, and the quantum and type of evidence required of the employer correspond to the specificity of the claimaint's evidence and allegations. The evidence necessary to overcome the presumption is least when the claim rests-as this one apparently did once the testimony respecting the November 19 accident was rejected-on little more than some arguable link between the disabling condition and the nature of the work. There appears to be little in the abbreviated record before this Court directly supporting this broader theory of recovery. Although one physician testified that "[t]he man is certainly disabled from working," App. 130, this statement was made in the course of questioning about the possible effects of the alleged November 19 incident. Another doctor, describing Riley's condition shortly after he entered the hospital, noted: "[M]ost of his work is overhead type and involves quite a bit of hyperextention of the neck. That means that most of his work he will have to do with his neck bending upwards." Id., at 158. That same doctor, however, referred repeatedly to Riley's assertion that he felt pain as a result of bending or twisting his neck while lifting duct work in November 1975, and rendered his diagnosis on that basis. See id., at 162-169. Although Riley hardly proved his theory by this medical evidence, given the nature of the injury and the nature of his work, Riley clearly made the "initial demonstration of employment-connection [that] will give the presumption a foothold." 1 A. Larson, supra, § 10.33, at 3-121 (1978).

This definition of "claim" comports with its accustomed meaning in the context of comparable compensation statutes. For example, "claim" is defined for purposes of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U. S. C. §801 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), as "a written assertion of entitlement to benefits under [the Act], submitted in a form and manner authorized by the provisions of this subchapter." 20 CFR § 725.101(a)(16) (1981). See also 20 CFR § 10.5(a)(7) (1981) (Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U. S. C. §8101 et seq.).

The Court's reliance on the notice requirement of §12 to suggest that the claim encompass some allegation of "time, place, and manner," so that the Court can in turn conclude that the statutory presumption applies to what is alleged in the "claim," is a patchwork job. The "claim" is something entirely apart from the §12 notice. Indeed, § 12(d) employs the very distinction that the Court seeks to blur: "Failure to give such notice shall not bar any claim under this chapter" where the employer had actual notice, the Deputy Commissioner excuses such notice, or where no objection was raised to the failure "before the deputy commissioner at the first hearing of a claim for compensation ...." 33 U. S. C. § 912(d).

For example, the regulations provide that "[t]he order in which evidence and allegations shall be presented and the procedures at the hearings generally ... shall be in the discretion of the administrative law judge and of such nature as to afford the parties a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing." 20 CFR § 702.338 (1981). That same regulation provides that "[i]f the adminstrative law judge believes that there is relevant and material evidence available which has not been presented at the hearing, he may ... at any time, prior to the filing of the compensation order, reopen the hearing for the receipt of such evidence."

Although I do not profess expertise in the administration of the LHWCA, it does seem to me that this provision might have relevance in a case, such as the present one, where the administrative law judge intends to reject the claimaint's principal theory of the case, but where a second theory should be more fully explored before the question of compensation is finally determined. Of course, I would leave questions regarding the application of this and all other regulations governing LHWCA proceedings for the Review Board to resolve on remand. See also 20 CFR § 702.336(a) (1981).

See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ,r 1005-8--1 (1975). The mandatory parole requirement was first imposed by the Illinois Legislature in 1972. 1972 Ill. Laws, P. A. 77-2097, § 5-8--1. At the time that Williams pleaded guilty, the mandatory parole term for the offense of burglary was three years; however, Illinois law also provided that "[t]he Parole and Pardon Board may enter an order releasing and discharging a parolee from parole and his commitment to the Department when it determines that he is likely to remain at liberty without committing another offense." § ~3--8 (current version Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ,r 100~ (Supp. 1980)). In 1978 the parole requirement was amended by the Illinois Legislature and reduced, for the offense in question, to two years. 1977 Ill. Laws, P. A. 80-1099, §3. In People v. Wills, 61 Ill. 2d 105, 330 N. E. 2d 505 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 999, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the mandatory parole term is one of the consequences of a guilty plea that must be explained to the defendant before such a plea may be accepted. The court also held, however, that its decision should not be applied retroactively; thus, during the period between January 1, 1973, when the mandatory parole requirement became effective, and May 19, 1975, when Wills was decided, there was no state-law requirement that a defendant be advised of the parole requirement before pleading guilty.

The petition also requested "[a]ny further relief that [the] Court deems appropriate and just in this [m]atter." App. 13.

Although the denial of the motion to reconsider is dated January 27, 1978, it was not entered until February 2, 1978. Williams was released on February 1, 1978.

Southall began serving his sentence on October 8, 1974, the date of his arrest. He was released on parole on September 22, 1975. On October 8, 1976-well within the 3-year period that Southall was told he could be subject to the control of the Illinois Department of Corrections-he was declared a parole violator "as of November 1, 1975." The record does not disclose the nature of this parole violation.

Southall did not allege that he did not know of the parole requirement at the time he pleaded guilty. Southall simply alleged that "[he] was not previously aware that [he] would be detained on violation of mandatory parole." Id., at 65.

The District Court's original order commanding Southall's release was stayed until further order of the court, to permit the State to file the motion for reconsideration. Although the record does not contain an order terminating the stay, the Court of Appeals subsequently indicated that Southall had been released pursuant to the District Court's order. 594 F. 2d 614, 615 (CA7 1979).

The court did not identify these collateral effects or adverse consequences. It found the situation "similar in principle," however, to that considered in Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234.

In subsequent proceedings in the District Court, some uncertainty existed concerning the current effect of the parole term on Southall, since he had been returned to custody after committing a new offense. In its brief in this Court, however, the State declares that, as to the sentence at issue here, Southall was "totally discharged from the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections as of October 24, 1979." Brief for Petitioner 10. Our holding that his case is moot is based on the understanding that the State may not subject Southall to any further detention or restraint as a result of the mandatory parole term at issue in this case.

Cf. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238; Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257; Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U. S. 637. We do not decide whether, to establish such a constitutional violation, respondents must claim that they in fact did not know of the parole requirement at the time they pleaded guilty or that they would not have pleaded guilty had they known of this consequence.

Since this relief would free respondents from collateral, as well as direct, consequences of a criminal conviction, the case would not be moot even if the previous sentence had been served and the State indicated that it would not seek a retrial. Cara/as v. LaVallee, supra.

Williams' general prayer for "[a]ny further relief that [the] Court deems appropriate and just in this [m]atter"-or the fact that the District Court may have inherent power to fashion an appropriate remedy for the violation of a constitutional right-is not equivalent to a specific request by respondents to set aside their convictions. We need not decide here whether respondents would ever be entitled to relief other than the opportunity to plead anew. Unless respondents requested such relief, however, it surely would not be appropriate to enter an order that would subject them to the risk of retrial after their sentences had been served.

The State of Illinois has chosen to define narrowly the collateral civil penalties that attach even to a conviction of a criminal offense; generally, collateral consequences do not extend beyond the completion of the sentence or the release from imprisonment. See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ,i 1005--5--5 (Supp. 1980).

In his dissenting opinion, JUSTICE MARSHALL argues that this case is not moot because a possibility exists under state law that respondents' parole violations may be considered in a subsequent parole determination. This "collateral consequence" is insufficient to bring this case within the doctrine of Carafas. That case concerned existing civil disabilities; as a result of the petitioner's conviction, he was presently barred from holding certain offices, voting in state elections, and serving as a juror. This case involves no such disability. The parole violations that remain a part of respondents' records cannot affect a subsequent parole determination unless respondents again violate state law, are returned to prison, and become eligible for parole. Respondents themselves are able-and indeed required by law-to prevent such a possibility from occurring. Moreover, the existence of a prior parole violation does not render an individual ineligible for parole under Illinois law. It is simply one factor, among many, that may be considered by the parole authority in determining whether there is a substantial risk that the parole candidate will not conform to reasonable conditions of parole. Collateral review of a final judgment is not an endeavor to be undertaken lightly. It is not warranted absent a showing that the complainant suffers actual harm from the judgment that he seeks to avoid.

The District Court's order did not require the Warden to expunge or make any change in any portion of respondents' records. Nor have respondents ever requested such relief.

Of course, the existence of express statutory civil disabilities is not a prerequisite to holding that a habeas challenge to a criminal conviction is not moot. See, e.g., Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 54-57 (1968) (discussing Fiswick v. United States, 392 U. S. 211 (1946)); United States v. Morgan, 346 U. S. 502 (1954); Pollard v. United States, 352 U. S. 354 (1957)).

Paragraph 1003-3-7 provides: "(a) The conditions of parole or mandatory supervised release shall be such as the Prisoner Review Board deems necessary to assist the subject in leading a law-abiding life. The conditions of every parole and mandatory supervised release are that the subject: "(1) not violate any criminal statute ... ; and "(2) refrain from possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon. "(b) The Board may in addition to other conditions require that the subject: "(1) work or pursue a course of study or vocational training; "(2) undergo medical or psychiatric treatment, or treatment for drug addiction or alcoholism; "(3) attend or reside in a facility established for the instruction or residence of persons on probation or parole; "(4) support his dependents; "(5) report to an agent of the Department of Corrections; "(6) permit the agent to visit him at his home or elsewhere to the extent necessary to discharge his duties ..." (emphasis added). [Footnote 3 is continued on page 638]

Today's decision, in which the majority undertakes a cursory and misleading examination of state law, starkly demonstrates the wisdom of applying the doctrine of Carafas and Sibron to the determination whether a State attaches collateral consequences to parole violations. I would apply that doctrine, presume the existence of collateral consequences, and reach the merits of this case. Even if the doctrine of