Tugboats pass jack-up rigs at a shipyard in Singapore January 21, 2014. REUTERS/Edgar Su
A welding contractor who was injured while working on an elevated oil-drilling rig 20 miles off the Louisiana coast cannot sue his employer under the Jones Act, the en banc 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Wednesday.
The 18-member court used Gilbert Sanchez’s lawsuit against his employer, Smart Fabricators (SmartFab), to backtrack on more than 20 years of its own precedent, finding it had misapplied a “trilogy” of U.S. Supreme Court precedent from the 1990s by focusing too narrowly on whether the worker was exposed to “perils of the sea.”
“While this is one of the considerations in the calculus, it is not the sole or even the primary test,” Circuit Judge W. Eugene Davis wrote for the full court.
SmartFab attorney M. Matthew Jett of Hall Maines Lugrin said he was pleased with the outcome and “optimistic the Court’s opinion will provide certainty regarding Jones Act seaman status in the 5th circuit and other jurisdictions for future cases.”
Sanchez was represented by attorneys at Baker Wotring and the Buzbee Law Firm, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case was unusual in that the three-judge panel that decided the case last August suggested en banc review.
According to the lawsuit Sanchez filed in Texas state court in December 2018, he had been seriously injured the previous August while working as a welder for SmartFab on a jackup rig called Enterprise 263.
Sanchez had been onboard for nearly two weeks when he tripped over a pipe that had been welded above floor level. Since he was carrying a welding torch, he was unable to break his fall and injured his ankle, knee and back.
Sanchez sued SmartFab under the Jones Act for failing to provide a safe workplace.
SmartFab removed the case to federal court, where the judge ruled that Sanchez was not a seaman, and therefore, his exclusive remedy was a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, which he was already receiving.
In March 2020, the 5th Circuit affirmed, saying that the Jones Act requires a plaintiff to have a “connection of a substantial nature” to a vessel in navigation.
A month later, however, it withdrew the opinion on its own initiative and scheduled another round of arguments.
In August, the panel voted to reverse the district court. The majority found that Sanchez’s case was indistinguishable from cases the 5th Circuit had decided in 2000 and 2014, which focused on whether the workers were exposed to “perils of a maritime environment” even if they were merely docked at a port on a navigable waterway.
In a unanimous concurrence, however, the panel suggested that the full court review its decision because the 2000 and 2014 cases were “probably not consistent with” the Supreme Court decisions from 1991, 1995 and 1997.
The en banc court heard argument in January, and concluded Tuesday that “(s)imply asking whether the worker was subject to the ‘perils of the sea’ is not enough.”
Other factors to consider, the court said, were whether the worker “owe(s) his allegiance to the vessel” or to a shoreside employer; whether the work involves “seagoing activity,” and whether the worker leaves after the completion of a “discrete task” or continues to sail with the vessel “from port to port or location to location.”
The case is Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas LLC, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-20506.
For Sanchez: W. David George of Baker Wotring and Tony Buzbee of the Buzbee Law Firm
For Smart Fabricators: M. Matthew Jett and Evan Caffrey of Hall Maines Lugrin
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
"course" - Google News
May 12, 2021 at 09:05AM
https://ift.tt/3bjMgvz
Full 5th Circuit admits it strayed off-course with Jones Act test - Reuters
"course" - Google News
https://ift.tt/35q9ps5
https://ift.tt/35rCFi1
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Full 5th Circuit admits it strayed off-course with Jones Act test - Reuters"
Post a Comment