Malta v. Wood Group Production Services
| Decision Date | 29 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | BRB 14-0312 |
| Parties | LUIGI A. MALTA Claimant-Petitioner v. WOOD GROUP PRODUCTION SERVICES Self-Insured Employer-Respondent DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Respondent |
| Court | Longshore Complaints Court of Appeals |
Appeal of the Decision and Order and the Decision and Order on Claimant’s Petition for Reconsideration of Larry W Price, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.
Frank M. Buck, Jr. (The Buck Law Firm) and Al J. Robert, Jr. (Law Office of Al J. Robert, Jr., LLC), New Orleans, Louisiana for claimant.
Edward F. Stauss, III and Tori S. Bowling (Keogh, Cox & Wilson Ltd.), Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for self-insured employer.
Matthew W. Boyle (M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor; Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor; Mark A. Reinhalter, Counsel for Longshore), Washington, D.C., for the Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor.
Before: HALL, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, McGRANERY and BUZZARD, Administrative Appeals Judges.
DECISION AND ORDER
Claimant appeals the Decision and Order and the Decision and Order on Claimant’s Petition for Reconsideration (2013-LHC-01511) of Administrative Law Judge Larry W. Price rendered on a claim filed pursuant to the provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §901 et seq. (the Act.). We must affirm the administrative law judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law if they are supported by substantial evidence, rational, and in accordance with law. 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(3); O’Keeffe v. Smith Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965).
The facts involved in this case are not in dispute. Claimant worked for employer as an offshore warehouseman on the Black Bay Central Facility, a fixed platform located in Louisiana state territorial waters. Tr. at 10, 28-30. Employer, a contractor for Helis Oil and Gas Company, provided support on the Central Facility for various satellite oil and gas production platforms located in the Helis Black Bay field.[1] Id. The Central Facility includes living quarters for the workers who operate the satellite production platforms. Id. at 11-12, 20. While other workers left the Central Facility each morning to work on the satellite platforms, claimant remained on the Central Facility platform throughout his work shift. Id. The Central Facility platform also contains a warehouse and three cranes used for loading and unloading vessels. Id. at 14-15, 24-25; CX 3. Most of the equipment and supplies needed for operations in the Helis Black Bay field were shipped by vessel from Venice, Louisiana to the warehouse on the Central Facility. Id. at 18, 22-23, 30-31, 33-36. These materials included pipes, valves, compressors, nitrogen cylinders, flanges, tool bags, repair parts, and potable water. Id. at 12, 19, 30-31. These supplies and equipment were unloaded from the vessels and stored in the warehouse on the Central Facility. Id. at 10-12, 22, 34. When supplies were needed by workers on the satellite platforms, they were loaded onto vessels at the Central Facility and shipped to the satellite platforms. Id. at 20-21. The uncontroverted hearing testimony of both claimant and Ray Pitre, employer’s project manager, establishes that loading and unloading vessels at the Central Facility was a large part of claimant’s job and that he performed these activities on a daily basis.[2] Id. at 13-14, 16-18, 20-21, 23, 29-31, 34, 36.
On April 14, 2012, claimant, who was on the Central Facility platform in front of the warehouse, was injured in the course of unloading a vessel. A cargo basket containing a CO2 cylinder mislabeled as “empty” had been lifted off the vessel by a crane. As claimant removed the cylinder from the cargo basket, it forcefully discharged. In diving out of the way of the cylinder, claimant sustained injuries to his back, left arm and shoulder, and left foot. CXs 1, 2; ALJX 1; Tr. at 17-18, 25, 32. Employer contested coverage under the Act, but paid claimant temporary total disability benefits under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act. Decision and Order at 1; Tr. at 5-6.
In his Decision and Order, the administrative law judge found that claimant’s injury did not occur on a covered situs. 33 U.S.C. §903(a). Specifically, the administrative law judge found that the Black Bay Central Facility is not an “other adjoining area” for purposes of coverage under the Act. Consequently, he denied the claim for benefits. The administrative law judge denied claimant’s motion for reconsideration.[3]
On appeal, claimant challenges the administrative law judge’s finding that the Black Bay Central Facility is not a covered situs. Employer responds, urging affirmance. The Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (the Director), also responds, advocating that the Board reverse the administrative law judge’s finding that the Central Facility is not a covered situs. Claimant has filed a reply brief addressing the arguments made in employer’s response brief.
To obtain benefits under the Act, a claimant must establish that his injury occurred on a covered situs. Section 3(a) of the Act states:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, compensation shall be payable under this chapter in respect of disability or death of an employee, but only if the disability or death results from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel).
33 U.S.C. §903(a). In this case, claimant’s injury occurred on a fixed platform, which, for purposes of the Act, is considered to be an artificial island. See Herb’s Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414, 17 BRBS 78(CRT) (1985); Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 395 U.S. 352 (1969); Coastal Prod. Serv. Inc. v. Hudson, 555 F.3d 426, 432 n.17, 42 BRBS 68, 71 n.17(CRT), reh’g denied, 567 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2009). Thus, as claimant was not injured on navigable waters or on one of the sites specifically enumerated in Section 3(a), the situs requirement is satisfied only if his injury occurred in an “other adjoining area customarily used by an employer” in loading or unloading a vessel.[4] BPU Mgmt., Inc./Sherwin Alumina Co. v. Director, OWCP [Martin], 732 F.3d 457, 460-461, 47 BRBS 39, 40(CRT) (5th Cir. 2013); Hudson, 555 F.3d at 431-432, 42 BRBS at 71(CRT); Dryden v. The Dayton Power Light Co., 43 BRBS 167, 168 (2009). In construing the “other adjoining area” provision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, within whose jurisdiction this case arises, has held that “an ‘other adjoining area’ must satisfy two distinct situs components: (1) a geographic component (the area must adjoin navigable waters) and (2) a functional component (the area must be ‘customarily used by an employer in loading [or] unloading…a vessel’).” Martin, 732 F.3d at 461, 47 BRBS at 40(CRT) (quoting New Orleans Depot Services, Inc. v. Director, OWCP [Zepeda], 718 F.3d 384, 389, 47 BRBS 5, 8(CRT) (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc)); see alsoCunningham v. Director, OWCP, 377 F.3d 98, 38 BRBS 42(CRT) (1st Cir. 2004); Bianco v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 304 F.3d 1053, 36 BRBS 57(CRT) (11th Cir. 2002); Nelson v. American Dredging Co., 143 F.3d 789, 32 BRBS 115(CRT) (3d Cir. 1998); Sidwell v. Express Container Services, Inc., 71 F.3d 1134, 29 BRBS 138(CRT) (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1028 (1996).
In this case, it is undisputed that the platform on which claimant was injured satisfies the geographic component of the situs test, [5] see Emp. Resp. Br. at 6; Decision and Order at 5, and thus the sole issue before the administrative law judge was whether the functional component was met. As recognized by the administrative law judge, to satisfy the functional component of the situs inquiry, the site of the claimant’s injury must be customarily used for loading or unloading a vessel, but need not be used exclusively or primarily for those maritime purposes. See Decision and Order at 5; Martin, 732 F.3d at 461, 47 BRBS at 41(CRT); Hudson, 555 F.3d at 432, 42 BRBS at 71(CRT); Dryden, 43 BRBS at 168. The administrative law judge, however, rejected claimant’s contention that the Central Facility on which claimant was injured was customarily used for loading and unloading vessels and therefore satisfied the functional component of the situs test. See Decision and Order at 6. Specifically, the administrative law judge disagreed with claimant that the unloading of supplies and equipment shipped by vessel from the shore to the Central Facility and the subsequent loading of supplies and equipment from the Central Facility onto vessels to be shipped to the satellite platforms qualifies as maritime commerce. Id. Rather, the administrative law judge found that the purpose of the Central Facility is “to further drilling for oil and gas, which is not a maritime purpose.” Id at 7 (quoting Thibodeaux v. Grasso Prod. Management Inc., 370 F.3d 486, 494, 38 BRBS 13, 18(CRT) (5th Cir. 2004)).[6] The administrative law judge further distinguished the facts in this case, in which the oil itself was neither stored on nor shipped from the Central Facility, from Hudson, 555 F.3d 426, 42 BRBS 68(CRT), which involved a fixed platform that facilitated the loading of oil which was shipped ashore by barge.[7] Decision and Order at 7. He determined that “[t]he platform in this case is not a shipping platform but is a central facility that houses workers and supplies for shipment to satellite platforms that drill and produce oil and gas[, ]”[8] and accordingly concluded that the situs requirement was...
To continue reading
Request your trial