Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Potomac Electric: A Scheduled Longshore Injury Used the Statutory Schedule

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 14, 2026 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, OWCP, 449 U.S. 268 (1980).

Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, OWCP involved a covered employee whose workplace injury permanently reduced use of his left leg, an injury specifically listed in the Longshore Act’s permanent-partial-disability schedule. The case exposes two easy mistakes: Treating a physical loss-of-use percentage as the same as a lost-earning percentage, and reading a permanent-partial-disability holding as a cap on every kind of disability.

The administrative award used actual wage loss

Cross remained employed as a cable splicer, but the knee injury kept him from strenuous duties, overtime and some pay increases. Medical testimony put his loss of use of the leg between 5 and 20 percent, while the opinion described his impairment of earning capacity as more than 40 percent. These were different measurements. The administrative law judge used section 8(c)(21)’s lost-earning-capacity method rather than deciding the exact scheduled loss of use. Potomac Electric, 449 U.S. at 271–272 & n.4.

The residual formula did not offer a second choice for a listed injury

The Court read section 8(c)(21)’s residual language literally. It applies when a permanent partial disability is not already identified in the statutory schedule, not as an optional alternative whenever a scheduled award appears inadequate.

The schedule reflects a legislative compromise

Fixed awards provide prompt and predictable recovery without requiring individualized wage-loss proof, while giving employers defined exposure. The Act did not guarantee the largest possible recovery for every covered impairment.

The financial difference was real, not hypothetical. The majority described a scheduled award of roughly $3,200 to $12,800, depending on the final degree of impairment. The rejected alternative was $86.76 per week for the rest of Cross’s working life. The Court recognized the disparity but held that sympathy did not authorize it to rewrite the statutory categories. These historical amounts describe this record; they do not estimate a current worker’s benefits. Potomac Electric, 449 U.S. at 283 n.25, 284.

Justice Blackmun dissented. He read the Act’s economic definition of disability and remedial purpose as allowing a worker to prove lost earning capacity rather than accept an inadequate scheduled award. He also identified the possible disincentive for an injured worker to return to a lower-paying job. The majority acknowledged unfair results but required legislative change rather than adopting his reading. Potomac Electric, 449 U.S. at 284–291.

The scheduled measure controlled the disposition

The Court reversed the judgment allowing the residual wage-loss method. The holding concerned permanent partial disability. The majority expressly distinguished a scheduled injury that leaves a worker permanently totally disabled: Once total disability is established under the applicable provision, the permanent-partial schedule is not the governing measure. Naming a scheduled body part does not answer that separate classification question. Potomac Electric, 449 U.S. at 277–278 n.17.

The Court also confined its question to an injury limited in effect to the scheduled body part. It did not decide every claim involving effects elsewhere in the body. Current claims still require careful classification of each impairment, later statutory amendments, multiple-injury rules, and any separate unscheduled conditions. Potomac Electric, 449 U.S. at 279–280 n.20.

Key takeaways

• Identify whether each permanent impairment is listed in the statutory schedule.
• Distinguish loss of physical use, loss of earning capacity and total versus partial disability before comparing two proposed benefit calculations.
• Analyze separate injuries and combination rules individually.
• Preserve medical proof of impairment, maximum improvement, and functional loss.