In the case of O'Keeffe, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, U.S. Department of Labor v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates Inc., et al., 1964, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding workers’ compensation for federal employees working overseas. The respondent company had been contracted by the government to provide architectural and engineering services in Morocco where one employee was injured and another killed in an automobile accident while off duty. Both families sought compensation under the Defense Base Act which extends coverage from Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) to those employed outside continental US on military bases or public work contracts with any agency of the United States. The court held that "public work" included not only construction but also operations conducted for governmental purposes; thus making both employees eligible for benefits despite being off-duty at time of incident as their presence there was due to employment necessity. Furthermore it clarified that LHWCA should be liberally construed in favor of its beneficiaries.

In the dissenting opinion for O'Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. He argued that Congress intended to provide a one-year statute of limitations from when an employee becomes aware of their injury and its connection to their employment. The majority’s decision effectively extended this period indefinitely by ruling that it begins only when an employee is aware they have a compensable disability under federal law. This interpretation, according to Justice Harlan, would lead to uncertainty in litigation and potentially burden employers with claims dating back many years or even decades. Furthermore, he believed it was not within the Court’s power but rather Congress’ role to make such significant changes in policy.