Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Banks: A Factual Mistake Allowed Compensation Review, and Remittitur Was Not a Third-Party Compromise

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 10, 2026 · Updated October 20, 2026

Decision: Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Ass’n, 390 U.S. 459 (1968).

A newly found eyewitness gave a widow a second route to Longshore death benefits after her first claim was denied. A separate lawsuit then raised another question: Did accepting a judge’s reduction of a jury verdict forfeit those benefits? Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Ass’n, 390 U.S. 459 (1968), resolved both the scope of factual-mistake review and the difference between a court-ordered reduction and a negotiated compromise. These are separate checks when a compensation claim and an outside-party lawsuit overlap.

A prior denial did not foreclose timely factual-mistake review

The widow initially attributed her husband’s January 30, 1961 fall at home to an injury at work four days earlier. The deputy commissioner rejected that claim on June 8. The Supreme Court noted that the denial did not clearly distinguish insufficient proof that the earlier injury occurred from insufficient proof that it caused the fall. Neither reading made the later factual-mistake request unavailable. Banks, 390 U.S. at 460 & note 2, 462–465.

Explain which factual finding the new evidence changes

An eyewitness identified a different work injury on January 30, about two hours before the fall at home. The widow filed again on August 22, 1961, within months of the denial, although the later hearing occurred more than a year after it. The timely request mattered; the later hearing date did not defeat it. Calling the filing a new claim rather than an application for review did not change its substance. Banks, 390 U.S. at 461, 463 note 4, 465 note 8.

Section 22 reaches mistakes about work-related causation

Section 22 permitted correction of a factual mistake about whether the death was work-related. The employer’s proposed limitation to clerical errors or disability questions had no support in the statutory text or history. The Court therefore rejected the claim-preclusion bar in this case. The widow also argued that res judicata does not apply to administrative compensation cases generally and, alternatively, that her second filing involved a different cause of action. The Court expressly declined to reach those arguments because section 22 resolved the dispute. Banks, 390 U.S. at 462 note 3, 463–465.

For a current request, 33 U.S.C. § 922 retains the one-year modification framework keyed to the last compensation payment or rejection of the claim, as applicable. It expressly does not authorize modification of settlements. Identify the order, payment history and requested factual correction promptly; discovering evidence is not a promise of unlimited time or an automatic new award.

A judge’s remittitur differs from a negotiated settlement

The jury awarded $30,000 against a third party. The judge required the widow to accept an $11,000 reduction or face a new trial, and judgment was entered for $19,000. A remittitur is that judicially ordered reduction. The Court distinguished the judge’s independent evaluation of damages from an agreement involving mutual concessions by the parties. Accepting this remittitur was not a compromise under section 33(g). The Court also upheld the deputy commissioner’s causation finding as supported by substantial evidence and reversed the court of appeals. Banks, 390 U.S. at 461, 465–467.

That distinction is not permission to settle without approval or omit notice of a judgment. The present section 933(g)(1)–(2) addresses employer-and-carrier approval before execution of a below-entitlement settlement, filing that approval, and notification of settlements or third-party judgments. Noncompliance can terminate compensation and medical benefits. Review those separate obligations before acting; a judge’s involvement does not automatically make every negotiated resolution a remittitur.

Key takeaways

• Distinguish a factual mistake from a change in condition and calendar the applicable modification period.
• Preserve newly discovered witness evidence and explain why it changes the factual determination.
• Analyze separately any third-party judgment, settlement, remittitur, or approval requirement.
• Confirm the current statutory text and limitations period before seeking modification.

General information only, not legal advice. This federal Longshore decision does not establish California WCAB reopening rules or extend a claim, modification or settlement deadline.