In a lengthy decision, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island addressed a number of Jones Act-related issues, ultimately holding: (1) that the trial justice’s unearned wages jury instruction, which was part of his instructions to the jury with respect to the plaintiff’s claim for maintenance and cure, was erroneous and resulted in prejudice to the defendant; (2) that the trial justice overlooked and misconceived material evidence in the course of granting the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on his claims for negligence under the Jones Act and breach of the warranty of seaworthiness; and (3) that the trial justice erred in applying Rhode Island’s prejudgment interest statute, rather than following federal maritime law, which would have required the plaintiff to request an instruction whereby the issue of awarding prejudgment interest (vel non) would be submitted to the jury. As to the unearned wages jury instruction, the court stated (withRead more
Maritime Law Did Not Apply to Guest’s Drunk Driving Accident
The Supreme Court of Texas recently determined that admiralty jurisdiction did not apply to a horrific drunk driving crash simply because the driver responsible for the crash had been drinking on a small, chartered fishing boat. The facts were not disputed. A technology company hosted a business retreat at a lodge in Aransas Pass near the Gulf of Mexico. On that retreat, one of the company’s clients drank excessively on a fishing boat. The boat returned to the lodge, at which time the client left to drive home. One-and-a-half hours later, the “significantly intoxicated” client crossed into oncoming traffic and struck a motorcycle. Both motorcycle riders lost their left legs. They sued the technology company, arguing that it negligently allowed their client to drink excessively. Texas does not recognize such social host liability, so the plaintiffs asserted that federal maritime law applied to the case because the client became intoxicatedRead more
Beach Cleaner Was Not Injured On a Longshore Situs
In an unpublished decision, the Fifth Circuit addressed Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act coverage for an employee cleaning beaches after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The facts were not disputed: On August 21, 2010, Global [Management Enterprise] employee Librado De La Cruz was allegedly injured while lifting a bag of oil-laden sand that would later be loaded onto a truck and transferred to a vessel for removal. It is undisputed that De La Cruz spent up to two hours actively loading and unloading the vessel at the pier, and six or seven hours cleaning the beaches. At the time of the incident, De La Cruz was working on a beach located a few feet from Gulf waters and around a half-mile from the pier at which the vessel docked. After his injury, Global’s insurer began paying state workers’ compensation benefits. De La Cruz then filed a Longshore Act claimRead more
More Briefs Filed in Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots
In 1995, the Supreme Court decided Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995), wherein it announced a test for determining “seaman” status. To qualify as a “seaman” the employee must (1) contribute to the function of a vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, and (2) have a connection to a vessel in navigation that is substantial in both duration and nature. The Supreme Court favorably cited a rule of thumb from the Fifth Circuit whereby an employee would be denied “seaman” status if they spent less than 30% of their time in the service of a vessel in navigation. Last year, the Court of Appeals of Maryland decided Dize v. Association of Maryland Pilots, which addressed the “seaman” status of an employee who maintained vessels that are dockside or ashore. The court determined that such work does not factor into the 30% rule because maintaining a mooredRead more
The Zone of Special Danger Includes Grocery Shopping
In a new published Defense Base Act (“DBA”) claim, the Benefits Review Board further clarified the zone of special danger doctrine. A widow filed a claim for death benefits after her husband was killed in Tbilisi, Georgia, while working for the employer. The decedent’s job required that he work five days per week, and that he remain on-call for emergencies. In addition to wages, the decedent received a monthly allotment for housing and utilities, as well as vouchers for a taxi service. While riding in a taxi going to the grocery store, the decedent’s vehicle was struck head-on by another car, causing his death. Death benefits are owed under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as extended by the DBA, when the decedent died in the “course of employment.” For Defense Base Act claims, the Supreme Court has held the “an employee may be within the course of employment,Read more
Defense Base Act Contractor Denied Vaccine Act Compensation
Petitioner worked for Fluor as a military contractor. On February 1, 2012, while employed by Fluor in Afghanistan, he received a flu vaccine and subsequently developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome. The flu vaccine was a Department of Defense requirement, and was distributed at a Fluor clinic at Bagram Airfield. A few weeks after receiving the shot, Petitioner began to feel weakness and numbness in his extremities. On March 5, 2012, he filed a claim for Defense Base Act (“DBA”) benefits. A month and a half later, Petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“Vaccine Act”). The United States Court of Federal Claims was tasked with determine whether Petitioner qualified for Vaccine Act compensation. Petitioner argued that as a government contract worker stationed in Afghanistan, he was either a member of the Armed Forces or a federal employee. Even though he filed a DBA claim,Read more
BRB Upholds Longshore Settlement, Rejects Director’s Adequacy Arguments
Earlier this week, the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) issued its published decision in Richardson v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. Regular readers of this blog will recognize Richardson as the interesting case about Section 8(i) settlement agreements. To recap, the claimant and the employer/carrier, both represented by attorneys, entered into a settlement that the District Director disapproved because of adequacy concerns. The parties referred the claim to the Office of Administrative Law Judges, added another $500 to the total settlement amount and asked the judge to issue an Order approving the settlement. A dispute arose between the two represented parties and the Solicitor of Labor’s office. The Solicitor (on behalf of the Director) argued that the settlement was not adequate. The judge disagreed and issued the settlement Order. The Solicitor appealed to the BRB. The BRB agreed with the administrative law judge, and in doing so, published a very significant opinion discussingRead more
How Does DLHWC Divide Longshore Death Benefits Between Spouse and Child When the Maximum Compensation Rate Applies?
Today’s post discusses different methods employed by the Department of Labor’s Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation (“DLHWC”) for the calculation of death benefits between a surviving spouse and a surviving child when the total weekly amount owed for compensation is capped at the applicable maximum compensation rate. This topic is best analyzed with a hypothetical, so here are our facts: (1) Decedent’s average weekly wage at the time of death was $2,500. (2) The maximum compensation rate in effect at the time of death was $1,325.18. (3) Decedent is survived by a spouse and a child. (4) Decedent’s spouse is not the mother of the child; and the child resides with his mother. When a Longshore or Defense Base Act employee is killed in a work-related injury, his beneficiaries are most likely entitled to death benefits. The calculation of death benefits is controlled by Section 9 of theRead more
No Work-Related Stress Claims Under the Jones Act, Says 11th Circuit
William Skye worked a lot. A whole lot. Skye worked between 90 and 105 hours per week for 70 to 84 days at a time. Over the course of eight years, Skye’s cardiac condition (initially a benign arrhythmia) worsened. Skye’s cardiologist concluded that Skye’s “continued physical stress related to his job, with long hours and lack of sleep” caused the worsening. By 2008, Skye was diagnosed with left ventricular hypertrophy–a thickening of the heart wall of the left ventricle. According to the cardiologist, Skye’s stress led to hypertension which, in turn, caused the left ventricular hypertrophy. In 2011, Skye sued Maersk Line for negligence under the Jones Act. He alleged that Maersk failed to provide reasonable working hours, an adequate crew, and adequate rest. Maersk overworked him to the point of fatigue, thus causing physical damage to his heart. A jury agreed and awarded damages of $2,362,299. But because SkyeRead more
Around the Longshore and Maritime Blogosphere
Happy Friday, everyone. Here are some great Longshore and maritime related posts that I recommend reading. The LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation Law Community published two interesting articles. First up is Karen Koenig’s Update from the Benefits Review Board (May 2014). In addition to important statistics about the Board’s caseload, the article addresses the Board’s recent interpretation of Section 2(3)(F) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”). Congress amended Section 2(3)(F) in 2009. It now excludes from coverage “individuals employed to build any recreational vessel under sixty-five feet in length, or individuals employed to repair any recreational vessels, or to dismantle any part of a recreational vessel in connection with the repair of such vessel . . . if [the individual is] subject to coverage under a state workers’ compensation law.” Next up is The Loyola Current, which is published by the Loyola New Orleans Maritime Law Journal. Recent postsRead more
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- …
- 39
- Next Page »
