Case Law

Date Decided: June 8^th, 2009

Originally Filed in: Louisiana (Federal)

Decided by: Louisiana Eastern District Court (Federal)

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Judge: District Judge Berrigan

Citation: 2009 WL 1649734 (ED LA 2009)

Background:
Before the Court was defendant Fluid Crane's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Lennis George opposed the motion.

George alleged he was injured while ascending metal steps on the Apache 623B production platform located offshore. Fluid Crane sought summary judgment claiming George was not a Jones Act seaman.

Issues:
Whether the Court will grant summary judgment to Fluid Crane.

Held:
To establish seaman status for Jones Act purposes, George must have established that: (1) his duties contributed to the function of the vessel or the accomplishment of its mission; and (2) that he had a connection to a vessel or an identifiable fleet of vessels in navigation that was substantial in terms of both its duration and nature.

First, the Court noted that George admitted there were no facts that would support a finding of seaman status. George's admission was binding, but he could have moved to withdrawal or amend his admission. However, he failed to do either.

Thus, the Court found that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to George's seaman status and granted Fluid Crane's motion for summary judgment.

In the alternative, the Court found that George failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to George's seaman status even if this Court were to disregard George's prior judicial admission.

No evidence existed that George was injured on a "vessel." The Fifth Circuit has determined that "fixed platforms" are not vessels and workers injured on them are covered under the Longshore Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA"), not the Jones Act.

Thus, the Court would still have granted summary judgment to Fluid Crane.

Comments:

The Court noted that summary judgment was granted for the defendant based mostly on his admission to having no evidence he was a seaman. Further, he failed to redact his statement, which gave the Court no choice but to grant summary judgment.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 'Requests for Admission' states that a previous admission is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.

Steve Gordon
http://www.offshoreinjuries.com