No Seaman Status when Assignment Changed to Platform

Posted on February 11th, 2020

If a worker changes assignment from land-based to vessel-based work, “…he is entitled to have the assessment of the substantiality of his vessel-related work made on the basis of his activities in his new position.”[1]

The change-of-assignment concept, however, may also apply in reverse. The district court in Ross v. W&T Offshore, Inc.[2] entered summary judgment that a galley hand/cook assigned to work on a fixed production platform was not a seaman despite prior work on vessels. Alton Ross worked for Bailey Support Services as a galley hand and cook for four months on W&T Offshore’s Ship Shoal 349-A prior to his claimed slip-and-fall injury. The SS 349-A, however, is not a vessel.[3] It is an oil production platform that for over two decades has been permanently affixed to the seafloor by eight pilings.[4]

Ross argued that his prior service for Bailey aboard four vessels owned by three different companies afforded him seaman status.[5] The district court rejected Ross’s arguments, holding that there was not a fact issue that Ross was permanently assigned to the SS 349-A, which, as a non-vessel, could not support seaman status.[6] Therefore, even if his prior work aboard four vessels owned by three different companies made him a seaman, which is unlikely, his assignment to a fixed production platform precludes seaman status.[7] [end].
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
   [1] Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 372, 115 S. Ct. 2172, 2191-92 (1995); see also
Wilcox v. Wild Well Control, Inc., 794 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2015)(“This reassignment exception applies only when an employee has ‘undergone a substantial change in status, not simply [by] serv[ing] on a boat sporadically.’”), citing Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 335 F.3d 376, 389 (5th Cir. 2003)(emphasis added).
   [2] 357 F.Supp. 3d 554 (E.D. La. 2018)(Brown, J.).
   [3] Id. at 563.
   [4] Id.
   [5] Id. at 559.
   [6] Id. at 564.
   [7] Id.


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