Nature Element of Seaman Status Missing for Welder on Jack-Up Rig

by Matthew H. Ammerman on February 11th, 2020

To be a seaman, (1) a worker’s duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission; and, (2) the worker’s connection to the vessel or identifiable group of vessels must be substantial “in both its duration and nature.”[1]

It is rare to see a summary disposition on the “nature” element of the substantial-connection prong. But that is what the Southern District of Texas did in Sanchez v. Enterprise Offshore Drilling, LLC, involving a contract welder injured offshore on a jacked-up drilling rig.[2]

Sanchez sued Enterprise and his employer, Smart Fabricators of Texas, LLC, in state court. Defendants removed to federal court arguing that Sanchez was not a seaman and the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to OCSLA because Sanchez’s injury occurred while the rig was jacked up on the Outer Continental Shelf.[3] Sanchez, on the other hand, argued he was a seaman, and, therefore, his case was not removable.[4]

Judge Rosenthal necessarily held that Enterprise’s jack-up rigs that Sanchez worked on were “vessels in navigation” despite being jacked-up at the time Sanchez worked on them.[5] The judge further held that—though Sanchez’s employer worked for different clients—Sanchez had the requisite durational connection to the two Enterprise jack-ups because he spent over 30% of his work days on those jack-ups.[6] But, Sanchez lacked a substantial connection to Enterprise’s vessels in terms of nature.[7]

The court credited Enterprise’s evidence that Sanchez only worked on those two rigs when they were jacked up, and, consequently, he was not exposed to sea-perils sufficient to satisfy the nature element.[8] The Court distinguished the Fifth Circuit’s Naquin case because the lift boat crane repair supervisor in Naquin was primarily shore-based but also performed parts of his job on moving vessels.[9] The evidence submitted did not show that Sanchez had a substantial connection to Enterprise’s rigs that regularly exposed him to the perils of the sea.[10] Therefore, Sanchez was not a seaman, and his suit was properly removed. On July 17, 2019, Sanchez filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit of Judge Rosenthal’s final judgment holding that Sanchez was not a seaman as a matter of law and dismissing his suit.[11] The parties briefs have been filed in the appeal, and a decision may be issued in early 2020. [end].
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
   [1] Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 376, 115 S. Ct. 2172, 2194 (1995)(emphasis added).
   [2] 376 F. Supp. 3d 726 (S.D. Tex. March 25, 2019).
   [3] Id. at 728.
   [4] Id., citing 46 U.S.C. § 30104; 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a).
   [5] Id. at 731, citing Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2013)(jack-up rigs are considered vessels under maritime law)(additional citations omitted).
   [6] Id. at 732 (“During those 67 days, Sanchez worked two days in a shop on land; 48 days on the Enterprise WFD 350, a jacked-up drilling rig next to a pier; and 13 days on the Enterprise 263, a jacked-up drilling rig offshore. (Id.). Because Sanchez spent more than 30% of his time working on the Enterprise WFD 350 and the Enterprise 263, he satisfies the minimum-duration requirement.”)(citations omitted).
   [7] Id. at 732-733.
   [8] Id., citing Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548, 555, 117 S. Ct. 1535, 137 L. Ed. 2d 800 (1997).
   [9] Id. at 732, citing Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C., 744 F.3d 927, 934-935 (5th Cir. 2014); see also 2018 Recent Developments at 382-384.
   [10] Id at 733, citing Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 335 F.3d 376, 391 (the plaintiff, an intern, was not a seaman because his work "[did] not constitute the kind of regular or continuous commitment of his labor to the service to that vessel that regularly exposed him to the perils of the sea"); In re Buchanan Marine, L.P., 874 F.3d 356, 367-68 (2d Cir. 2017).
   [11] 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101436 (June 18, 2019), notice of appeal filed, Cause No. 4:19-cv-00110, Doc. 30 (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2019).


Posted in not categorized    Tagged with no tags

Search

Subscribe

follow on
Tags

11th circuit 5th Circuit 905(b) 9th circuit ALJ Aggravation Rule Amclyde Average weekly wage Bienvenu Boroski CMS CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 Churchill Contribution Cowart Credit Intoxication defense L-MSA LHWCA discovery LHWCA: Medical LHWCA Longshore Report of Injury Longshore situs Longshore Maintenance and cure New Orleans Depot OCSLA OPA Oil Pollution Act Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Permanent total disability Roberts Section 10(a) Section 10(c) Section 20 Presumption Section 33(g) Section 7 Medical Section 7 Stroke Supreme Court Testbank Townsend Tracy Valladolid actually incurred additional insured adjoining area batterton change of physician compensation container repair disability doiron dollar-for-dollar dr. seidemann eggshell skull exclusion extraterritorial general maritime law hearing loss herron factors indemnity intervening cause jones act joseph tracy last responsible employer rule liability MSA longshore act longshore status manderson maritime contract maritime punitive damages master service agreement maximum compensation rate mcbride v. estis mcbride medical expenses naquin non-pecuniary damages occupational disease outer continental shelf pai or incurred paid or incurred pecuniary damages percentage of responsibility presumption punitive damages ramos rate rebuttal recreational vessel seaman status seaman situs special weight status substantial nexus transitory maritime worker unseaworthiness vessel negligence vessel status voluntary retirement winchester test winchester zepeda mixed-use facility zepeda