Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Rambo II: A Nominal Longshore Award Can Preserve Relief for Likely Future Wage Loss

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 27, 2026 · Updated October 29, 2026

Decision: Metro. Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121 (1997).

Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, commonly called Rambo II, addressed a longshore worker who earned more after his injury but sought a nominal award because physical limitations threatened his future earning capacity.

Disability is an economic concept under the Longshore Act

The statute focuses on lost wage-earning capacity, not physical injury alone. In the earlier Rambo I decision, the Court allowed modification based on economic change without physical improvement. Rambo II addressed the next question: Could a small present award preserve a remedy for a significant future risk despite current high earnings? Rambo II, 521 U.S. at 123–130.

A future loss must be more than speculative

A nominal award requires proof of a significant possibility that the injury will cause reduced earning capacity in the future. A bare theoretical risk is insufficient.

Nominal compensation preserves the modification mechanism

The Act permits modification when economic conditions change. A present nominal award can keep that statutory path available if the anticipated injury-related loss later materializes.

The factfinder must assess the labor-market record

Medical restrictions, occupational skills, job stability, wage history and realistic employment prospects bear on future risk. The worker must prove that the possibility is significant, not simply assume it. The Supreme Court vacated the order directing a nominal award and required the agency factfinder to make that assessment. Rambo II, 521 U.S. at 138–141.

Justice O’Connor, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, dissented. She agreed that future earning power mattered but would have required the adjudicator to fix the worker’s present earning capacity, including future loss proved more likely than not, rather than award nominal benefits for a significant possibility of loss. She also read the one-year modification limit as a choice favoring finality. On this record, Rambo had learned crane work, worked steadily at it for two and a half years and earned substantially more; she considered the existing finding of no earning-capacity loss supported by substantial evidence. She would have reversed rather than remanded for another assessment. Rambo II, 521 U.S. at 141–150 (O’Connor, J., dissenting).

Key takeaways

• Separate present wages from durable earning capacity.
• Develop medical and vocational evidence of future risk.
• Show why the possibility of loss is significant rather than conjectural.
• Track modification deadlines and changed economic circumstances.