its traditional discretionary powers to withhold equitable relief for the enforcement of a compensation award obtained through an employee’s fraud. Since section 921(d) contains no explicit delimitation of the district court’s equitable powers, we must look to the LHWCA’s remedial framework as a whole. The LHWCA affords Jones an adequate remedy for redressing any fraud alleged in the affirmative defense. Eschewing conventional res judicata principles, section 922 allows an employer to request the ALJ to reconsider the ease where there has been a “change of conditions” or “mistake of fact” warranting modification or suspension in compensation payments. See 33 U.S.C. § 922; see also 20 C.F.R. § 702.373; Hudson v. Southwestern Barge Fleet Servs., Inc., 16 Ben.Rev.Bd.Serv. 367, 369 (1984) (<HOLDING>) (citing Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Ass’n,
holding that lear does not abrogate general principles of res judicata or the res judicata effect of a consent decree regarding patent validity holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings holding that  922 was intended by congress to displace traditional notions of res judicata holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment