In the case of Braen v. Pfeifer Oil Transportation Co., Inc., the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and workers' compensation. The plaintiff, Captain Braen, was injured while working aboard a vessel owned by Pfeifer Oil Transportation Co., Inc. He filed for damages under both New York's Workmen's Compensation Law and federal maritime law, which led to conflicting rulings in lower courts due to jurisdictional issues between state and federal laws. The Supreme Court held that since the injury occurred upon navigable waters - an area traditionally within admiralty jurisdiction - it fell under federal rather than state authority. Thus, Captain Braen could not claim benefits from New York’s Workmen’s Compensation Law but was entitled to seek relief through provisions of federal maritime law instead. This decision clarified that when incidents occur on navigable waters (even if they involve intrastate commerce), they are subject to exclusive regulation by Congress under its constitutional power over navigation.

The dissenting opinion in the Braen v. Pfeifer Oil Transportation Co., Inc. case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held an oil transportation company liable for injuries sustained by a seaman during his employment, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of his employer and thus failed to meet the burden of proof required under maritime law. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "unseaworthiness," arguing it should only apply when there is a defect in ship’s equipment or crew incompetence rather than any injury occurring onboard regardless of cause or fault. Furthermore, they contended that this broad interpretation could potentially lead to excessive litigation and financial burdens for shipping companies.