Lindquist v. Department of Labor & Industries of State of Wash.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 10160-9-I,10160-9-I |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 1985 A.M.C. 1880 Richard N. LINDQUIST, Deceased, Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES OF the STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant. ; 11563-4-I. |
Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Dinah C. Pomeroy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, for appellant.
Ken St. Clair, Mount Vernon, Detels, Madden, Crockett & McGee, J. Richard Crockett, Seattle, for respondent.
At issue in the case is which of two workers' compensation acts covers the fatal injury sustained by Richard N. Lindquist, a longshoreman, at the North Terminal of the Port of Bellingham--the federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, (Longshoremen's Act), or the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington (State Act).
The following facts were stipulated: 1
Mr. Lindquist was fatally injured when he fell from the back of a pickup truck on the North Terminal of the Port of Bellingham.
The accident occurred at approximately 4:15 p.m. on March 26, 1976. As a result of the injuries sustained Mr. Lindquist died at 0900 hours on March 30, 1976.
The driver and owner of that vehicle was Harvey C. Muggy. Other persons involved, as explained below, included Barry L. Frost and Edward L. Jones.
The Claimant and the other men identified above had been employed by Jones Washington Stevedoring Company on March 24, 1976 to work aboard the logship GRAND FELICITY.
Mr. Lindquist was not injured on board the vessel, but had he been injured on the vessel, the parties agree that accident would have been covered by maritime laws.
The GRAND FELICITY was located at Berth No. 2, to the west of Warehouse No. 1, North Terminal, Port of Bellingham.
The loading of the GRAND FELICITY had been completed by approximately 4:00 p.m. on the date of the accident. The men were released from work at that time, though by union agreement they are guaranteed their pay to the end of the particular shift (5:00 p.m.) on which they are working should their work end earlier.
Mr. Lindquist and his fellow workers began leaving the vessel and the dock area at 4:00 p.m. on the date of the accident to return to their vehicles. Mr. Lindquist and his fellow workers stopped at the lunch and gear storage room in Warehouse No. 2 to change their clothes and exchange their gear, before continuing on toward the parking area and their vehicles. The lunch/gear room was approximately 900 feet from the GRAND FELICITY.
As Mr. Lindquist, Frost and Jones emerged from the lunchroom, Mr. Muggy appeared on his pickup. Mr. Lindquist and Mr. Frost hopped on the tail end of the truck (the tailgate had been removed) and Mr. Jones got into the cab. Mr. Lindquist was carry ing his rain gear and lunch box in both arms while in the vehicle.
The route taken by the Muggy vehicle was the usual route for getting from the gear/lunchroom of Warehouse No. 2 to the parking area.
Mr. Muggy just began to drive away when Mr. Lindquist fell from the truck, landed on his buttocks and then fell backwards, striking the back of his head on the pavement. The truck had traveled 38 feet when Mr. Lindquist fell, a total of 65 feet from the door of the lunchroom.
Mr. Lindquist fell at a point just before the crosswalk and rolled into the crosswalk. His car was located a distance of 92 feet from his final resting point, in a small parking area near the terminal. There was another parking area for longshoremen, near the main gate.
The accident resulted in a skull fracture and cerebral concussion. The attending physician was Dr. Charles Anderson and treatment was first given at St. Lukes General Hospital in Bellingham. Mr. Lindquist was transferred to Providence Hospital in Everett. His death came as a direct consequence of the skull fracture.
For the quarter beginning January 1, 1976 and ending
March 31, 1976, Jones Washington Stevedoring Company paid premiums for workmen's compensation coverage to the Department of Labor and Industries for workmen in King, Pierce, Grays Harbor, Clallam, Snohomish and Whatcom counties for the following hours in the following classes:
Class 42-1 Stevedoring, Dock 6,313 hours
" " Clerks 3,464 "
" " Gear Locker 11,157 "
" " Superintendents 5,024 "
" " Executive 1,040 "
Class 49-4 Clerical Office 6,022 "
Class 63-3 Salesman 2,600 "
Exhibit A is a true and accurate plan of the North Terminal area, Port of Bellingham, as of the date of accident. The plan accurately depicts the location of the vessel, and the red dash marks show claimant's route of travel from the ship to the gear storage/lunchroom area. The depiction of the parking areas, crosswalk and vehicle (M representing Mr. Muggy's pick up truck) are true and accurate as are the dimensions noted. The circled X represents the final resting place of Mr. Lindquist's body.
(Paragraph numbers deleted.)
Although there is some measure of ambiguity in the language of this stipulation wherein it first refers to the fall as having been from the pickup truck located "on the North Terminal of the Port of Bellingham" (italics ours) and then refers to the fall as having occurred 92 feet from where the decedent's car was located in a parking area "near the terminal" (italics ours), the diagram entitled "Exhibit A" which is incorporated into the stipulation clarifies this. As the diagram clearly establishes, the parking lot where the decedent's car was parked and to which he was proceeding at the time of his fatal accident was a part of the same terminal where all of the other events referred to in the stipulation took place.
Claims for death benefits were filed under both the Longshoremen's Act and the State Act. The Longshoremen's Act claim has been held in abeyance while the claimant pressed the State Act claim. The State Act claim was rejected by the Department of Labor and Industries of the Two issues are determinative of these consolidated appeals.
State of Washington (Department) and the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board) affirmed the Department's order. The case was appealed from the Board to the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Whatcom County where, after a trial to the court, the Board's order was reversed. The Department has now appealed to this court. Subsequent orders entered by the Superior Court in this cause have also been appealed by the Department and the appeals have been consolidated herein
ISSUE ONE. At the time of the fatal injury, was the decedent a worker for whom a right existed under the maritime laws for personal injuries or death and thereby excluded from coverage under the State Act?
ISSUE TWO. Since the decedent's employer had segregated its payroll and reported a small part of the decedent's time to the Department under the State Act, was coverage on that account afforded under the State Act?
ISSUE ONE.
CONCLUSION. At the time the worker in this case sustained his fatal injuries, he was a worker for whom a right existed under the maritime laws for personal injury or death. Accordingly, the death claim arising from that injury is expressly excluded from coverage under the Industrial Insurance Act of Washington, RCW Title 51, and properly lies under the Federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq.
The issue here is not whether there is workers' compensation coverage for the death of the decedent but whether the State Act covered it, as the claimant contends, or whether the federal Longshoremen's Act covered it, as the Department contends. The case comes to us in the somewhat unusual posture of a claimant seeking coverage under the State Act rather than under the Longshoremen's Act. 4 A. Larson Workmen's Compensation § 89.71, at 16-286.41 (1983), points out that except in Alaska benefits are ordinarily higher under the Longshoremen's Act, therefore, "in every state but Alaska, the pressure will usually be to get out of state acts and into the federal act." (Footnote deleted.) See also Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Perini N. River Assocs., 459 U.S. ---, --- n. 26, 103 S.Ct. 634, 647 n. 26, 74 L.Ed.2d 465, 480 n. 26 (1983); Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 262-63, 97 S.Ct. 2348, 2356, 53 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977) ().
The part of the State Act which deals with maritime occupations is RCW 51.12.100. This statute is set forth in full in the margin 2 and the pertinent parts thereof will be separately discussed in the course of our opinion.
The Department has contended from the inception of this case that coverage for the decedent's death is precluded under the State Act by the first paragraph of that statute (see footnote 2). It reads:
The provisions of this title shall not apply to a master or member of a crew of any vessel, or to employers and workers for whom a right or obligation exists under the maritime laws for personal injuries or death of such workers.
(Italics ours.) RCW 51.12.100 (part). Thus, since the State Act by its terms excludes coverage for "workers for whom a right or obligation exists under the maritime laws for personal injuries or death of such workers", we, of necessity, turn to the maritime laws in order to determine whether the claimant has a right thereunder.
The parties agree that if such a right exists, it must exist under the Longshoremen's Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., or not at all. In general, that act provides for the payment of compensation benefits for disability or death of an employee coming under it if the employee's disability or death results from an injury occurring upon "navigable waters" of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc.
...902(4), 903(a). ¶ 9 To qualify for coverage under the LHWCA, a worker must satisfy a "2-tiered test." Lindquist v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 36 Wash.App. 646, 652, 677 P.2d 1134, review denied, 102 Wash.2d 1001 (1984). First, the worker must satisfy the "Situs Test," id. at 653, 677 P.2d 113......
-
Peterson v. Wash. State Dep't of Labor & Indus.
...determine whether maritime laws apply and deny a worker compensation under the IIA. See Lindquist v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. , 36 Wash. App. 646, 650, 657-58, 677 P.2d 1134 (1984).¶67 Another subsection of that statute dictates a workers’ responsibilities when a worker receives double compe......
-
Gorman v. Garlock, Inc.
... 89 P.3d 302 121 Wash.App. 530 Donald R. GORMAN and Flaellen Gorman, ... court erred by ruling that they failed to state a claim under the Washington Industrial Insurance ... In Lindquist v. Department of Labor and Industries, this ... ...
-
Sandland v. Safeway Stores Inc.
...App. 903, 909, 138 P.3d 177 (2006)), review denied, 167 Wn.2d 1015 (2009); Ruse, 138 Wn.2d at 5. 4. See Lindquist v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 36 Wn. App. 646, 647 n.1, 677 P.2d 1134, review denied, 102 Wn.2d 1001 (1984). 5. Marley v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 125 Wn.2d 533, 539, 886 P.2d 189......