In the case of Chapman v. Hoage, Deputy Commissioner, District of Columbia Compensation District et al., 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deputy commissioner had overstepped his authority in awarding compensation to an injured employee under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The claimant had been injured while working on a project that involved both maritime and non-maritime work; however, he was not engaged in maritime work at the time of his injury. Despite this fact, he sought compensation under federal law rather than local law because it provided more generous benefits. The employer argued that since the worker wasn't performing maritime duties when he got hurt, only local laws should apply - but both lower courts disagreed with them. When brought before the Supreme Court for review they upheld these decisions stating that even though some parts of their job were land-based tasks if any part involves sea-related activities then they are considered as 'maritime employees'. Therefore such workers can seek damages through federal channels regardless if their injuries occurred during non-maritime tasks or not.

In the dissenting opinion for Chapman v. Hoage, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of federal law. He contended that Congress had intended to provide a comprehensive scheme for compensation of injured workers in D.C., which included providing remedies against third parties responsible for their injuries. The majority's ruling, he believed, undermined this intent by allowing employers to escape liability if they were also classified as third-party tortfeasors under local laws. This interpretation not only contradicted prior court decisions but also created an unnecessary conflict between federal and state jurisdictions over worker compensation cases. Furthermore, it potentially left injured employees without adequate recourse or remedy for their injuries - contrary to the purpose of worker’s compensation laws.