Valladolid v. Pacific Operations Offshore LLP
Date Decided: May 13th, 2010
Originally Filed in: California (Federal)
Decided by: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Federal)
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Judge: Judge Selena
Citation: 2010 WL 1929890 (9th CIr. 2010)
Background:
Juan Valladolid (Valladolid) worked for Pacific Operations Offshore (Pacific) as a roustabout stationed on one of it's offshore drilling platforms.
Valladolid spent roughly 98% of his working time aboard the drilling platform the Hogan.
Occasionally, Valladolid would spend time working at Pacific Operation's onshore oil flocculation facility, located on the coast of California roughly 250-300 feet from the shore.
His work consisted mostly of cleaning and maintenance duties but when working at the onshore facility he would perform other duties such as painting, sandblasting, weed-pulling and operating a forklift.
Once every two years, he would help centralize the scrap metal from various locations in the onshore facility so third-party scrap collectors could easily haul it away.
While performing the task of centralizing scrap Valladolid was crushed by a forklift and killed.
As a result, his widow is seeking compensation under Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA") and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA").
The complaint was initially before the local district director of the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs but was then transferred to an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ").
The ALJ denied the OCSLA claim because the injury occurred onshore; outside the geographic situs of the OCSLA.
The ALJ then denied the LHWCA claim on two grounds: 1) the decedent was not engaged in maritime employment and 2) the decedent failed to satisfy the maritime situs requirement.
These decisions were upheld by the Benefits Review Board ("BRB").
Juan Valladolid (Valladolid) worked for Pacific Operations Offshore (Pacific) as a roustabout stationed on one of it's offshore drilling platforms.
Valladolid spent roughly 98% of his working time aboard the drilling platform the Hogan.
Occasionally, Valladolid would spend time working at Pacific Operation's onshore oil flocculation facility, located on the coast of California roughly 250-300 feet from the shore.
His work consisted mostly of cleaning and maintenance duties but when working at the onshore facility he would perform other duties such as painting, sandblasting, weed-pulling and operating a forklift.
Once every two years, he would help centralize the scrap metal from various locations in the onshore facility so third-party scrap collectors could easily haul it away.
While performing the task of centralizing scrap Valladolid was crushed by a forklift and killed.
As a result, his widow is seeking compensation under Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA") and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA").
The complaint was initially before the local district director of the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs but was then transferred to an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ").
The ALJ denied the OCSLA claim because the injury occurred onshore; outside the geographic situs of the OCSLA.
The ALJ then denied the LHWCA claim on two grounds: 1) the decedent was not engaged in maritime employment and 2) the decedent failed to satisfy the maritime situs requirement.
These decisions were upheld by the Benefits Review Board ("BRB").
Issues:
Must an employee injured on the outer continental shelf to be eligible for workers' compensation benefits under the OCSLA?
Must an employee injured on the outer continental shelf to be eligible for workers' compensation benefits under the OCSLA?
Held:
The court begins by explaining the situs requirements of the LHWCA and the OCSLA. The LHWCA provides compensation for the disability or death of a maritime employee if the injury occurs upon navigable waters of the United States. Under OCSLA, LHWCA benefits are extended to an employee injured as the result of operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf.
Petitioner argues that the BRB impermissibly applied a situs-of-injury requirement for OCLSA.
This issue is one of first impression before the Ninth Circuit. As such, it looked to its sister courts for assistance. The Third Circuit, in Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Service, Inc., 849 F.2d 805 (3d Cir.1988), rejected the situs of injury test. The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, applied a situs-of-injury requirement for OCSLA claims in Mills v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 877 F.2d 356 (5th Cir.1989).
Having found no binding precedent, the Court then looked to discern Congressional intent behind the OCSLA.
The Court determined that OCSLA was enacted in 1953 to establish federal jurisdiction over the submerged lands beyond the jurisdiction of the states in order to promote the orderly exploitation of minerals lying below the seabed.
It provides compensation for “any injury occurring as the result of operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf.” See § 1333(b) (emphasis added). Due to the language in the statute the Court rejected both Pacific and 5th Circuit's decision in Mills. The Ninth Circuit found the situs-of-operations requirement to be clear. Thus, the operations must be conducted on the outer continental shelf. As such, § 1333(b) may apply to injuries occurring outside the situs of the outer continental shelf, so long as they occur “as the result of operations conducted on the outer continental shelf.”
However, the Court found no basis for a simple but for test, as the Third Circuit did in Curtis, to determine whether OCSLA applies. The Ninth Circuit explained that injuries with a tenuous connection to the outer continental shelf are not covered.
Instead the Ninth Circuit created the following test: the claimant must establish a substantial nexus between the injury and extractive operations on the shelf. To meet the standard, the claimant must show that the work performed directly furthers outer continental shelf operations and is in the regular course of such operations.
Thus the Court rejected the BRB's situs-of-injury test and remanded the issue for further considerations but affirmed it's denial of benefits under the LHWCA.
The court begins by explaining the situs requirements of the LHWCA and the OCSLA. The LHWCA provides compensation for the disability or death of a maritime employee if the injury occurs upon navigable waters of the United States. Under OCSLA, LHWCA benefits are extended to an employee injured as the result of operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf.
Petitioner argues that the BRB impermissibly applied a situs-of-injury requirement for OCLSA.
This issue is one of first impression before the Ninth Circuit. As such, it looked to its sister courts for assistance. The Third Circuit, in Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Service, Inc., 849 F.2d 805 (3d Cir.1988), rejected the situs of injury test. The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, applied a situs-of-injury requirement for OCSLA claims in Mills v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 877 F.2d 356 (5th Cir.1989).
Having found no binding precedent, the Court then looked to discern Congressional intent behind the OCSLA.
The Court determined that OCSLA was enacted in 1953 to establish federal jurisdiction over the submerged lands beyond the jurisdiction of the states in order to promote the orderly exploitation of minerals lying below the seabed.
It provides compensation for “any injury occurring as the result of operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf.” See § 1333(b) (emphasis added). Due to the language in the statute the Court rejected both Pacific and 5th Circuit's decision in Mills. The Ninth Circuit found the situs-of-operations requirement to be clear. Thus, the operations must be conducted on the outer continental shelf. As such, § 1333(b) may apply to injuries occurring outside the situs of the outer continental shelf, so long as they occur “as the result of operations conducted on the outer continental shelf.”
However, the Court found no basis for a simple but for test, as the Third Circuit did in Curtis, to determine whether OCSLA applies. The Ninth Circuit explained that injuries with a tenuous connection to the outer continental shelf are not covered.
Instead the Ninth Circuit created the following test: the claimant must establish a substantial nexus between the injury and extractive operations on the shelf. To meet the standard, the claimant must show that the work performed directly furthers outer continental shelf operations and is in the regular course of such operations.
Thus the Court rejected the BRB's situs-of-injury test and remanded the issue for further considerations but affirmed it's denial of benefits under the LHWCA.
Comments:
In order for a claimant to support an OCSLA claim in the Ninth Circuit the claimant must show that the work performed directly furthers outer continental shelf operations and is in the regular course of such operations.
Steve Gordon.
In order for a claimant to support an OCSLA claim in the Ninth Circuit the claimant must show that the work performed directly furthers outer continental shelf operations and is in the regular course of such operations.
Steve Gordon.
<< PREVNEXT >>
