Previously, this blog reported that Senator Johnny Isakson introduced the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act Amendments of 2011. The text of the Senate Bill 669 is available here. The following list provides highlights of the first half of the proposed amendments. The Amendments would: 1. Provide a statement of Congressional intent to demonstrate that there shall not be a broad liberal construction in favor of the employee or employer. 2. Incorporate new definitions which, among other things, expressly states that “[p]hysical or mental conditions caused in part or in whole by an employer’s personnel actions shall not be considered an injury or disease compensable under the Act.” 3. State that compensation shall not be payable for dentures, eyeglasses, hearing aids, prosthetic devices, or artificial limbs unless those items are part of the medical treatment for a disability, or those items were damaged in the accident that resulted in a traumatic injuryRead more
Senate Bill 669: Proposed Longshore Amendments
On March 29, 2011, Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) introduced Senate Bill 669, known as “A bill to amend the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act to improve the compensation system, and for other purposes.” The bill has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions for consideration. The text of the bill was posted online this morning. Additional blog entries regarding the content of the bill will be posted soon. At the outset, it is important to note that Senator Isakson has previously sponsored bills that would amend the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. In 2006, Senator Isakson sponsored Senate Bill 3987; in 2007, he sponsored Senate Bill 846; and in 2009, he sponsored Senate Bill 236. (Note: I originally published this post on Navigable Waters: A Maritime, Longshore and Defense Base Act Blog.)
SCOTUS Grants Certiorari in OCSLA Case
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Pacific Operators Offshore v. Valladolid, which is an Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) decision from the Ninth Circuit. The Valladolid decision has garnered criticism (including from this blog) for its expansion of the OCSLA’s jurisdiction, as well as its creation of a third test for determining OSCLA jurisdiction. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court resolves this three-way Circuit split, and whether it reverses the Ninth Circuit. (Note: I originally published this post on Navigable Waters: A Maritime, Longshore and Defense Base Act Blog.)
Louisiana Loss of Consortium Claim for OCSLA Injury
On February 27, 2009, while working on an offshore platform, the plaintiff-employee was injured when a crane allegedly fell on him. The parties did not dispute that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) applied to the claim. Instead, the dispute concerned whether the plaintiff-wife could assert a loss of consortium claim under Louisiana law. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff-wife’s claim must be dismissed. Ultimately, the Eastern District of Louisiana concluded that “workers injured on fixed man-made structures situated on the Outer Continental Shelf and their families may utilize the state tort law of the adjacent state,” and that Louisiana tort law provides a cause of action for loss of consortium claims. The defendant’s motion was denied. Henderson v. McMoran Oil, No. 09-5626, slip op. (E.D. La. Oct. 18, 2010). (Note: I originally published this post on Navigable Waters: A Maritime, Longshore andRead more