In the 1982 case of Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. et al. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, et al., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a construction worker who had contracted an occupational disease while working overseas could receive benefits under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The court ruled in favor of the worker, stating that even though he did not contract his illness on navigable waters - as is typically required by LHWCA - he was still eligible for compensation because his work involved "maritime employment." This decision expanded the scope of what constitutes maritime employment under LHWCA to include any workers engaged in activities related to loading or unloading vessels regardless if they are located on actual navigable waters.

In the dissenting opinion for Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. et al. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, et al., Justice O'Connor argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 33(f) was inconsistent with its plain language and legislative history. She contended that Congress intended to limit an employer's liability in situations where a third party is also liable for a worker's injury or death; however, she believed this should only apply when the employee has actually recovered from both parties rather than merely having a potential claim against another party as interpreted by the majority ruling. In her view, such an interpretation could lead to unjust results where employees might be deterred from pursuing valid claims against third parties due to fear of losing their workers' compensation benefits.