Serv. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 834-35, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1968-69, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976) (“We have consistently held that a narrowly tailored employee compensation scheme pre-empts the more general tort recovery statutes.”). The court in Atkinson further reasoned that the statutory penalty “inferentially, but nonetheless plainly, also provides that the penalty shall not be any different amount, and that liability for it shall not vary according to anything, such as good or bad faith....” Atkinson, 838 F.2d at 812; see also Hall v. C & P Tel. Co., 809 F.2d 924 (D.C.Cir.1987) (finding state tort claim based on employer’s intentional refusal to make timely compensation payments preempted by exclusivity and late payment provisions of LHWCA); Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1347 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1019, 106 S.Ct. 1206,
holding that failure to pay obligations under a contract is a material breach as a matter of law when parties explicitly state in the contract that failure to pay warrants termination holding state wrongful refusal to pay claim barred by exclusivity and penalty provisions of lhwca and distinguishing martin from cases of ordinary refusals to pay holding that ordinary businesses do not pay fictitious profits holding that exclusivity provision of workers compensation act barred wifes loss of consortium claim holding statute of limitations for discriminatory pay practices begins when initial pay decision was made