Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Service, Inc.

Decision Date14 June 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-3683,87-3683
Citation849 F.2d 805
PartiesSamuel H. CURTIS, Petitioner, v. SCHLUMBERGER OFFSHORE SERVICE, INC., Travelers Insurance Company, and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Jordan N. Pedersen (argued), George J. Duffy, Baker, Garber, Duffy & Pedersen, Hoboken, N.J., for petitioner.

Martin Bergman (argued), Foley, Smit, O'Boyle and Weisman, New York City, for respondents Schlumberger Offshore Service, Inc., and Travelers Ins. Co.

Joshua T. Gillelan II (argued), George R. Salem, Donald S. Shire, J. Michael O'Neill, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

Before HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

HUTCHINSON, Circuit Judge.

This petition for review involves a claim for workers' compensation for personal injury pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Pub.L. No. 83-212, 67 Stat. 462 (1953) (current version at 43 U.S.C.A. Secs. 1331-1356 (West 1986 & Supp.1988)) (OCSLA). 1 The injury occurred in connection with outer continental shelf drilling operations but "off" the shelf itself. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that petitioner's injury was covered under the OCSLA, which incorporates the workers' compensation remedies of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. Secs. 901-950 (West 1986) (LHWCA), for certain employees of persons engaged in drilling operations above the outer continental shelf. On appeal, the Benefits Review Board (the Board) reversed, holding that the injury occurred outside the intended scope of the OCSLA. We have jurisdiction to review the final decision of the Board pursuant to 33 U.S.C.A. Sec. 921(c). Because we find that the OCSLA encompasses petitioner's claim, we will reverse and remand to the Board.

Petitioner Samuel H. Curtis worked as a well-logging operator 2 for Schlumberger Offshore Service, Inc. (Schlumberger). In April of 1978 Curtis was working off the coast of New Jersey on the New Era, a semi-submersible drill rig owned by Conoco Oil Company and operated by the Diamond M Company. On April 20, 1978, Curtis returned to his employer's headquarters in Rhode Island after a week on the New Era. Upon arriving, he was immediately ordered back to the New Era. During the early morning hours of April 21, Curtis drove to Atlantic City to meet the helicopter which was to fly him to the New Era. While on the New Jersey Garden State Parkway, the company car was struck head-on by another vehicle. Curtis suffered severe injuries and his passenger was killed.

Curtis filed a claim for permanent partial disability compensation with the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs on June 21, 1978. Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) voluntarily paid Curtis benefits for temporary total disability, at first under the LHWCA and after August, 1978 at reduced rates under New Jersey workers' compensation law. When Curtis returned to work on October 1, 1979 as a gun shop helper for Schlumberger, a position paying considerably less per year than that of well-logging operator, Travelers disputed Curtis's claim for permanent partial disability benefits.

At the formal hearing before the ALJ in October of 1981, Schlumberger and Travelers disputed both OCSLA coverage and the extent of Curtis's permanent disability. They argued that the statute only covered accidents occurring on an artificial island or fixed platform over the continental shelf, not this New Jersey motor vehicle collision. They also argued that the New Era rig was not a fixed platform and therefore was not within the scope of the OCSLA. They instead contended that Curtis was a "crew member" and his injuries were more properly covered by the Jones Act than by New Jersey workers' compensation law.

The ALJ found that the claim was covered by the OCSLA and awarded plaintiff relief for permanent disability under Sec. 8 of the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C.A. Sec. 908. 3 Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Services, Inc., No. 81-LHCA-1259 (Aug. 8, 1983). The Board reversed. Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Services, Inc., BRB No. 83-2113 (Aug. 26, 1987) (per curiam). It stated that the accident in New Jersey was "well outside the geographic boundaries of the Outer Continental Shelf" and therefore fell outside the intended scope of the OCSLA. Curtis, BRB No. 83-2113, slip op. at 3. Although Curtis was within the scope of his employment at the time he was injured, he was not "subject to the unique working conditions and hazards associated with the exploration and development of the Shelf." Id. Therefore, the Board concluded that his injuries were not covered. The Board specifically found it unnecessary to address whether the OCSLA only covers accidents on fixed platforms and whether the ALJ properly computed Curtis's loss of earning capacity. Id. at 3 n. 2.

On review, 4 we must decide whether Curtis's injury falls within the scope of 43 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1333(b). 5 Our review is limited to a determination of whether the Board acted in conformance with applicable law and within its proper scope of review. Oravitz v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 843 F.2d 738, 739 (3d Cir.1988); Janusziewicz v. Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 677 F.2d 286, 290 (3d Cir.1982). We owe no deference to the Board's interpretation of the OCSLA; however, we will respect that interpretation if it is reasonable. See Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 449 U.S. 268, 278 n. 18, 101 S.Ct. 509, 514-15 n. 18, 66 L.Ed.2d 446 (1980) (Board's interpretation of LHWCA entitled to no special deference since it does not "administer" that statute); Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 812 F.2d 518, 521 (9th Cir.1987).

In maritime jurisprudence, courts have spent decades trying to discern what kind of employee is covered by what statute for which injuries occurring in which locations. This case is apparently one of first impression and allows us to carry on that tradition. Accordingly, we will proceed to determine whether Congress intended that the OCSLA cover off-rig injuries. In so doing, we first look to the plain language of the statute. Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 106 S.Ct. 2485, 2495, 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986); Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command v. FLRA, 836 F.2d 1409, 1416 (3d Cir.1988).

Congress enacted the OCSLA in 1953 to establish federal control and jurisdiction over the outer continental shelf and its apparently vast mineral resources, including oil and natural gas. The Secretary of the Interior was given the power to issue regulations to foster competition for federal leases of mining rights. 43 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1334(a). Section 1332 established federal control over the subsoil and seabed lying more than three miles seaward of a state's shores and up to the outer limits of the shelf. 6 43 U.S.C.A. Secs. 1332, 1312. In Sec. 1333, entitled "Laws and regulations governing lands," Congress provided in subsection (c) that the LHWCA was to apply "[w]ith respect to disability or death of an employee resulting from any injury occurring as the result of operations described in subsection (b) of this section." 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1333(c) (1958 version). 7 Subsection (b) provided that district courts would have jurisdiction over:

cases and controversies arising out of or in connection with any operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing or transporting by pipeline the natural 'resources, or involving rights to the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf.

43 U.S.C. Sec. 1333(b) (1958 version).

The Board's holding that Curtis's accident, although occurring within the scope of his employment, was "well outside the geographic boundaries of the Outer Continental Shelf" and therefore outside the intended scope of the OCSLA, is not supported by the language of the statute which refers to "any injury occurring as the result of operations described in subsection (b)." 43 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1333(c) (1958 version). The Board sought to support its holding by reasoning that Curtis "was not at the time of the accident subject to the unique working conditions and hazards associated with the exploration and development of the Shelf." Curtis, BRB No. 83-2113, slip op. at 3. However, subsections (b) and (c) of Sec. 1333 did not place any nexus, situs or geographic restrictions on claims for injuries in connection with outer continental shelf operations. Indeed, former subsection (b), incorporated into former subsection (c) by reference, also provides jurisdiction over matters "arising out of or in connection with" any operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf. Since the 1978 amendment combining (b) and (c) was not meant to change the meaning of the law, the language quoted speaks against the Board's position. The only possible statutory basis for the Board's position is Sec. 1333(a)(1), which reads:

The Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the United States are extended to the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf and to all artificial islands and fixed structures which may be erected thereon for the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing, and transporting resources therefrom, to the same extent as if the outer Continental Shelf were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State....

43 U.S.C. Sec. 1333(a)(1) (1958 version). 8 This subsection makes no reference to injuries and, as we read it, is a provision intended for the separate purpose of asserting federal jurisdiction over the seabed underlying the outer continental shelf. The only criterion subsections (b) and (c) impose for securing LHWCA benefits is for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Valladolid v. Pac. Operations Offshore
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 13 Mayo 2010
    ...Ninth Circuit. Two other circuits presented with this exact issue have reached conflicting conclusions. In Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Service, Inc., 849 F.2d 805 (3d Cir.1988), the Third Circuit rejected the situs-of-injury test and held that a claimant need only satisfy a “but for” te......
  • Pac. Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 2012
    ...of Mills v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 877 F.2d 356 (C.A.5 1989) (en banc); Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Service, Inc., 849 F.2d 805 (C.A.3 1988) ). Instead, the Ninth Circuit concluded that "the claimant must establish a substantial nexus between the injury and ......
  • Mays v. Chevron Pipe Line Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 3 Agosto 2020
    ...establish a broader test covering any injuries that would not have occurred "but for" OCS operations. See Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Serv., Inc. , 849 F.2d 805, 811 (3d Cir. 1988). In Valladolid , the Supreme Court rejected both formulas in favor of the Ninth Circuit's middle-ground te......
  • Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Rock
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 7 Enero 1992
    ...of whether the Board acted in conformance with applicable law and within its proper scope of review." Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Service, Inc., 849 F.2d 805, 807 (3d Cir.1988). When factual findings are at issue, we may make an independent factual review to determine whether the admini......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • DOWN WITH THE DEVIL: THE RISE AND FALL OF SUBSTANTIAL NEXUS.
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 21 No. 2, June 2022
    • 22 Junio 2022
    ...See Pacific Operators, LLP v. Valladolid, 132 S. Ct. 680 (2012). [Herein Valladolid II] (9) Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Service, Inc., 849 F.2d 805 (3 (rd) Cir. Ct. App. 6/14/88). [Herein (10) Mills v. Dir., OWCP, 877 F.2d 356 (5 (th) Cir. Ct. App. 7/4/89). [Herein Mill II] (11) Vallado......
  • OFFSHORE WORKER; ONSHORE INJURY; LHWCA COVERAGE? .
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 21 No. 1, January 2021
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...F.3d.at 590. (30) 33 U.S.C. [section] 903(a). (31) Id. (32) 43 U.S.C. [section] 1333(b). (33) Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Serv., Inc., 849 F.2d 805 (3d Cir. 1988), cited in Owensby, 997 F.3d.at (34) Id. at 806. Curtis was a well-logging operator who worked mostly on a semisubmersible dr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT