Summary

Czaplicki v. The S.S. Hoegh Silvercloud…

We need not go so far as to say that by giving the employee an interest in the proceeds of a third-party action the statute places the assignee in the position of a fiduciary, cf. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 46, 48; all we hold is that, given the conflict of interests and inaction by the assignee, the employee should not be relegated to any rights he may have against the assignee, but can maintain the third-party action himself.
Source: Wikisource

Czaplicki v. The S.S. Hoegh Silvercloud…

Here, where there is such a conflict of interests, the inaction of the assignee operates to defeat the employee's interest in any possible recovery. Since an action by Travelers would, in effect, be an action against itself, Czaplicki is the only person with sufficient adverse interest to bring suit. In this circumstance, we think the statute should be construed to allow Czaplicki to enforce, in his own name, the rights of action that were his originally.
Source: Wikisource

Czaplicki v. The S.S. Hoegh Silvercloud…

In these circumstances, we cannot agree that Czaplicki is precluded by the assignment of his rights of action from enforcing those rights in an action brought by himself.
Although § 33 (b) assigns to the employer 'all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages' against third parties when there has been acceptance of compensation under an award, this does not mean that the assignee is entitled to retain all damages in the event of a recovery against a third party.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature