Jones Act Maritime Lawyer : Houston Jones Act & Maritime Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Arnold & Itkin Law Firm : Offshore Injury, Maritime Law : Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida

Engineers who examined the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig’s blowout preventer for the U.S. Department of the Interior report that a dislodged pipe blocked portions of the device from closing properly.  Eleven people were killed in the resulting explosion in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010, and millions of gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf and shut down commercial fishing for months.

In light of that finding, Houston maritime injury attorney Jason Itkin called for inspections of blowout preventers on oil rigs throughout American waters.  Itkin challenged the oil industry to prove its claim that the blowout preventers are safe, effective and won’t expose offshore workers to the risk of workplace accident, injury or death.

“An orderly and thorough inspection of every blowout preventer that is currently in use in the Gulf and elsewhere is obviously the next move in light of the engineers’ report to the federal government,” said Itkin, a founding partner of Arnold & Itkin LLP, a Houston maritime law and personal injury law firm that has been deeply involved with the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf oil spill disaster.

“The expense of the inspections cannot be weighed against the protection of lives, the environment and the oil industry itself,” Itkin said.

The Texas maritime lawyers of Arnold & Itkin LLP are working to protect the rights of many Transocean offshore workers and Gulf Coast businesses seeking redress for injuries caused by the BP Deepwater Horizon spill.

Co-founding law firm partner Kurt Arnold agreed.  “The time is now to move forward and protect the thousands of workers who put their lives on the line in the Gulf and other American waters every day to ensure this country’s energy needs are supplied,” said Arnold, himself an experienced maritime accident attorney.

The lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP are aggressive maritime accident trial attorneys who understand the complexities and legalities of maritime law.

For a free consultation, call an Arnold & Itkin LLP maritime accident lawyer toll free at (877) 632-8168 or contact us online.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Houston maritime injury attorney deeply involved with the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf oil spill disaster has voiced skepticism about an oil industry plan to establish an offshore safety institute.

Kurt Arnold, founding partner of Arnold & Itkin LLP, voiced concern recently that, despite assurances otherwise, the American Petroleum Institute’s proposed Center for Offshore Safety would be too closely tied to the API’s mandate to promote the industry’s interests.

As Arnold observed, “The objectives of the Center for Offshore Safety are proper and necessary, but they should be addressed by a totally independent organization, not by the oil industry’s primary trade group."

The Presidential commission that studied the April 2010 explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig operated by Transocean and the resulting oil spill recommended an institute to study offshore safety issues.

Eleven people were killed in the Deepwater Horizon explosion, and the millions of gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf shut down commercial fishing for months.

“The API exists to lobby for and otherwise promote its member oil companies, and it is, at best, difficult to see how it will serve two masters." — Houston maritime attorney Kurt Arnold

The maritime lawyers of Arnold & Itkin LLP are working to protect the rights of many Transocean offshore workers and businesses injured in the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. Arnold and partner Jason Itkin are acknowledged experts in the Jones Act and other maritime law.

Jack Gerard, API president and CEO, said in a statement announcing the Center for Offshore Safety that it “will promote the highest level of safety for offshore operations through an effective program that addresses management practices, communication and teamwork, and which relies on independent, third-party auditing and verification.”

The API said the Center, which is to be based in Houston, will be operated by API’s standards and certification arm, which is separate from its lobbying group.

“Offshore workers are continuously exposed to the threat of serious injury, from burns and electrocution, to back injuries, head injuries, loss of a limb and fatalities,” Arnold said. “Serious study of offshore hazards and the development of policy and procedures to help mitigate the risks of offshore work is warranted. But we don’t expect it to be done properly by those who profit from the dangerous jobs these workers are willing to do.”

The maritime lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP, a Houston personal injury law firm, understand the complexities and legalities of maritime law and have a successful track record of verdicts and settlements in favor of offshore workers. The firm can be contacted toll free at (866) 222-2606 or online through its website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bartholomew v. SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., No. A127424 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. March 16, 2011)

A California Court of Appeal recently rejected a vessel-owner negligence claim asserted by a worker who suffered asbestos exposure during his career as a marine machinist.

In the late 1970s, Alan Bartholomew worked for a ship repair company that assigned him jobs in enclosed machinery spaces on ships owned by SeaRiver Maritime, Inc.  Many years later he was diagnosed with asbestosis.

Bartholomew filed suit against SeaRiver and others, seeking damages for asbestos exposure.  As to SeaRiver, he argued that it was liable for vessel-owner negligence pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 901, et seq.

SeaRiver countered that Bartholomew couldn't show evidence of any breach of duty under LHWCA, citing the rule that a vessel owner’s duty includes eliminating or warning of an unsafe condition only to the extent necessary to make a work environment safe for “expert and experienced” contractors (in the case of actual harmful conditions) and contractors of “reasonable competence” (in the case of latent hazards).

SeaRiver also cited the legal presumption that a ship repair contractor is both an expert and experienced, with the result that the shipowner can rely on the contractor’s judgment in deciding whether an obvious hazard can be safely handled.  SeaRiver noted that since 1971 shipyard employers have been required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act to know about the potential hazards of asbestos and to protect their workers accordingly.

The state trial court granted summary judgment in favor of SeaRiver. In Bartholomew v. SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., the Court of Appeal agreed, concluding that he didn't raise a triable issue about whether asbestos-containing insulation and airborne asbestos were dangers that an “expert and experienced” ship repair contractor would have expected to encounter in the late 1970s.

The court referred to a shipowner's "turnover" duty, under which the shipowner must exercise at least ordinary care to have a ship and its equipment in a condition that would allow an expert and experienced repair company to work with reasonable safety.  The shipowner also must warn of any hidden danger which would have been known to the shipowner in the exercise of reasonable care.

The primary issue was whether Bartholomew's employer, as an expert and experienced ship repair contractor, would reasonably expect asbestos-containing products and/or airborne asbestos fibers to be aboard the types of vessels that it serviced.

Among other things, the court noted, evidence showed that as early as the 1930s it was known that asbestos dust was harmful to worker health.  OSHA required employee protection from asbestos exposure beginning in 1971.

For his part, Bartholomew presented no evidence or legal authority that would support the conclusion that asbestos was not the type of hazard that an expert and experienced ship repair contractor should reasonably expect to encounter.  As a result, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of SeaRiver.

If you or a family member has suffered a maritime injury, call the maritime injury attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at (866) 222-2606 or contact us online. We provide free consultations, and we can advise you on all aspects of maritime law and the benefits you are entitled to under the Jones Act, the Death on the High Seas Act, the principle of maintenance and cure, or the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The United States Coast Guard reports that on March 19th its Sector New Orleans received notifications of possible pollution that varied in size and location. The Coast Guard's news release states that the largest sighting was described as a dark substance floating on and beneath the surface of the water stretching 100 miles out into the Gulf of Mexico south of Grand Isle.

The Coast Guard Cutter Pompano was deployed and gathered samples, which were analyzed and found to contain only trace amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease.  The results were quantified under the Louisiana Department of Enviromental Quality standards.

The Coast Guard concluded that the dark substance resulted from a tremendous amount of sediment being carried down the Mississippi River due to high water, possibly further agitated by dredging operations.

The Coast Guard also was notified on March 20 that an oily substance was washing ashore on Elmer Isle, Fourchon Beach and Grand Isle.  Coast Guard investigators' early reports indicated that the west end of Grand Isle, the east and west end of Elmer Island, and intermittent areas of Fourchon Beach were affected.  Sheen on the water in Timbalier Bay also was reported, but there was no confirmation of Timbalier Island being impacted, the agency said.

The Coast Guard activated certain oil spill response assets and began pre-staging boom in order to prevent oil from affecting various bays and other environmentally sensitive areas.

The Coast Guard noted that the oily substance was not suspected to be residual oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

“We have 10,000 feet of hard boom and 9,000 feet of five-inch sorbent boom ordered into the area.  We have 5,000 feet of each boom already delivered and staged in Grand Isle,” said Capt. Jonathan Burton, commanding officer Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Morgan City and Federal on Scene Coordinator for the response.

A private remediation company had been contracted to begin cleaning up the affected shorelines.

The separate incidents remain under investigation.

The lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP are aggressive maritime accident trial attorneys who understand the complexities and legalities of maritime law.

If you or a family member has suffered a maritime injury, call us toll free at (866) 222-2606 or contact us online. We provide free consultations, and we can advise you on all aspects of maritime law and the benefits you are entitled to under the Jones Act, the Death on the High Seas Act, the principle of maintenance and cure, or the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With rising oil prices and political instability in the Middle East threatening world oil supplies, Houston maritime lawyer Kurt Arnold acknowledges the importance of deepwater oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.

But Arnold said oil and gas companies that receive deepwater drilling permits should have improved safety procedures and disaster response plans to protect workers and avoid a repeat of the BP Transocean disaster that killed 11 rig workers last April.

Arnold, a partner in Arnold & Itkin LLP, a maritime accident law firm based in Houston that represents victims of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and Gulf oil spill, admonished that petroleum exploration companies engaged in deepwater drilling should have carefully crafted emergency plans to protect the lives and safety of offshore rig workers.

“We’ve lost too many offshore workers in preventable accidents already,” said Arnold, an experienced maritime injury and BP oil spill lawyer.

A recent Gallup poll, published in USA Today, shows that a majority of Americans favor increased offshore drilling along U.S. coasts. The poll follows the issuance of a second deepwater drilling permit by the U.S. Department of the Interior, allowing drilling crews to resume deepwater oil and gas exploration that had been suspended since the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster last April caused the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

BHP Billiton received a permit March 11 to resume production at its Shenzi facility located about 120 miles offshore of Houma, Louisiana. The issuance of that permit follows approval of an earlier deepwater drilling permit last month allowing Noble Energy, Inc., to resume drilling about 70 miles southeast of Venice, Louisiana, where it had worked before the moratorium.

The Deepwater Horizon incident underscored significant gaps in offshore drilling safety practices and a lack of preparedness by offshore oil and gas companies to contain a deepwater blowout in a timely fashion.

“We need to make sure that government safety standards and worker protections keep pace with technological innovations that allow offshore rigs to work at greater and greater depths,” said Jason Itkin, a Houston maritime lawyer and partner in Arnold & Itkin. “When the safety standards fall behind, rig workers pay the price with the loss of lives or serious injuries."

“Developing reliable deepwater resources and increasing U.S. energy production depends on improved deepwater drilling safety practices and the protection of offshore workers,” Itkin said. “The maritime accident lawyers at Arnold & Itkin are committed to making that happen.”

The maritime accident lawyers at the Houston, Texas-based law firm of Arnold & Itkin LLP provide legal guidance on all aspects of maritime law.  Arnold & Itkin LLP handles maritime claims at port cities along the Gulf Coast in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The firm can be contacted toll free at (866) 222-2606 or through its website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A research article in a recent issue of the journal Science sets out the results of an investigation into the atmospheric effects of the environmental tragedy that followed the catastrophic destruction of the BP Deepwater Horizon in April of last year.  The study examined measurements taken by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-led team, which conducted two flights downwind of the Deepwater Horizon spill areas in June 2010 using one of the agency's "hurricane hunter" aircraft.

Based on the data collected approximately two months after the oil rig’s destruction, researchers discerned two distinct plumes of airborne pollutants in the oil spill's aftermath.  The first was predicted – a narrow, 1.8 mile-wide, downwind plume that consisted of light hydrocarbons.  The second plume, researchers surmised, was formed from heavier compounds that took longer to evaporate.  The secondary plume was bigger than expected at some 24 miles wide, and it contained higher concentrations of aerosol particles than was anticipated.  Those results suggested that the heavier, less volatile crude oil vapors reacted in the atmosphere in a way that contributed to the formation of additional aerosol particles, essentially enhancing the pollution effect.

It’s well-known that air pollution in urban areas similar to that detected in the second Deepwater Horizon oil slick plume can damage the heart and lungs.  This raises the concern whether the airborne pollution in the Deepwater Horizon's aftermath could affect oil spill cleanup workers, who spent significant amounts of time on the water during oil slick cleanup efforts.  Time will tell whether additional health effects surface among such maritime workers as yet another component of the sad legacy of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

Arnold & Itkin LLP maritime accident attorneys serve clients in Texas and throughout the nation, handling maritime injury and many other types of complex cases.

If you have any questions regarding a maritime incident or have suffered a maritime injury, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation or call our maritime law office toll free at 866-222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Death on the High Seas Act applies to all waters beyond three nautical miles from U.S. shores.

Helman v. Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc., No. 09-56501 (9th Cir. March 14, 2011)

In 2007, three United States Navy crewman died in a helicopter accident over the Pacific Ocean some 9.5 nautical miles off the coast of Catalina Island.

The crewmen's families filed suit in California state court, alleging claims that included products liability, negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and wrongful death and survival under California law and general maritime law.

After removing the case to federal district court, a defendant argued that the state law claims were preempted by federal law, namely the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), because the accident occurred "on the high seas beyond three nautical miles from the shore of the United States."  The remaining defendants joined in that argument.

The federal district court held that DOHSA preempted the families' state law and general maritime causes of action for wrongful death.  The court concluded that DOHSA applied to non-commercial aircraft accidents that happened beyond three nautical miles from shore.  This was remained true despite a 1988 extension of the territorial sea of the United States from three to twelve nautical miles.  The accident here fell within the disputed area between three and twelve miles from the coast of California.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that DOHSA applies to all waters beyond three nautical miles from United States shores.

The court observed that where it applies, DOHSA preempts all other remedies for wrongful death occurring on the high seas.  A plain reading of DOHSA's clear and unambiguous language led the court to conclude that DOHSA's boundary for all purposes was three nautical miles from the shores of the United States.

Thus, the court declared, DOHSA applies to all waters beyond three nautical miles from United States shores.

This meant that the helicopter crash at issue was governed by DOHSA's remedial scheme, and the district court did not err in granting the defendants' motions seeking dismissal of the families' federally-preempted claims.

For a free consultation about a possible maritime injury or wrongful death claim, call a maritime accident lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at (877) 632-8168 or contact us online.  Our maritime injury attorneys can advise you on all aspects of maritime law, including the Jones Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, the principle of maintenance and cure and the Death on the High Seas Act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Oil companies are obliged to better protect their offshore workers when deep-water drilling starts again this month in the Gulf of Mexico, Houston maritime attorney Kurt Arnold says.  Arnold spoke in reaction to the recent approval of the first deep-water drilling permit since the April 20 BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster.  That horrific accident killed 11 offshore workers, injured several others and triggered the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

According to The Houston Chronicle, Noble Energy will begin the drilling in late March in its Santiago prospect about 70 miles southeast of Venice, Louisiana.  The company was drilling there before federal officials imposed a five-month moratorium.

“Our sincere hope is that getting back to business in the Gulf doesn’t lead to business as usual when it comes to the safety of offshore workers,” said Arnold, a partner in the Houston maritime law firm of Arnold & Itkin LLP, which is currently representing several Transocean workers who were injured in the Deepwater Horizon fire and explosion.

“New regulations are aimed at ensuring workplace safety for oil workers, and it’s going to be up to oil companies to follow those rules and up to federal officials to make sure companies comply,” Arnold said. “We can’t go back to the way it was before.

In an editorial piece in The Houston Chronicle, the director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement said the permit had been issued because Noble Energy had shown that it could drill its deep-water well safely and that it could contain any subsea blowout.

According to The Washington Post, new safety regulations will require oil and gas exploration companies to have in place specific procedures that are intended to prevent a well blow-out, such as the one that occurred with the Deepwater Horizon.

As the newspaper reported, a new workplace safety rule will also require drill operators to identify and address hazards as well as safety procedures and strategies for all phases of drilling.

Jason Itkin, a Houston maritime lawyer and partner of Arnold & Itkin, said the burden will be on oil and gas exploration companies to follow the new rules.

“Before last April, there was a culture of putting profit before safety, and we can never return to that culture,” Itkin said. “Offshore workers need to get back to drilling because they need the work. What they don’t need is another tragedy.”

The lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP are aggressive maritime accident trial attorneys who understand the complexities and legalities of maritime law.  Our law firm secured more than $100 million in verdicts or settlements for our clients in 2009.

To discuss a case with an experienced maritime lawyer, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP, or call the maritime law office of Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at 866-222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Arnold & Itkin LLP maritime accident trial attorneys recently filed a Jones Act suit on behalf of a Beaumont, Texas man. The case was filed against Maersk Line, Limited in Jefferson County, Texas.

The man was an OS who served aboard the USNS Able – a Military Sealift Command (“MSC”) special mission vessel.

The man was seriously injured while the ship was offshore of Japan while he was trying to exit a hatch. He severely hurt his lower back and tore tendons in his ankle. He has been unable to work since the accident.

Arnold & Itkin LLP is proud to help this seaman and his wife get their lives back on track.

If you have questions about a possible maritime injury claim, call our maritime accident lawyers toll free at (877) 632-8168 or contact us online.

We are skilled maritime accident trial lawyers and aggressive offshore injury attorneys for injured maritime workers. Our law firm secured more than $100 million in verdicts or settlements for our clients in 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Luera v. M/V Alberta, et al., No. 10-20002 (5th Cir. March 7, 2011)

Melinda Luera was severely injured while working in the Port of Houston.  According to Luera, she was struck by a mooring line that snapped when a vessel sped past the docked vessel on which she was working.

Luera brought personal injury claims against both vessels and their owners.  The claims against the vessels were brought in rem and asserted admiralty jurisdiction, while the claims against the owners and managers of the vessels were brought in personam on the basis of the federal district court's diversity jurisdiction.  Luera demanded a jury trial as to her claims against the vessel owners and managers.

The district court concluded that Luera had preserved her Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by pleading diversity as the sole basis, rather than as an alternate basis, for the court’s jurisdiction over her claims against the in personam defendants.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Luera was not barred from obtaining a jury trial on the ground that she asserted in rem admiralty claims against two vessels in the same complaint as her in personam claims premised on diversity jurisdiction.

A plaintiff who asserts admiralty jurisdiction regarding a claim is deemed to have elected to proceed under the admiralty rules, even if the plaintiff also asserts that her claim is subject to some other basis of jurisdiction.  The novel question presented in Luera's case was whether a plaintiff automatically made such an election to proceed under the admiralty rules when she specifically asserted only diversity (non-admiralty) jurisdiction for one claim in a complaint that also included a separate claim subject only to admiralty jurisdiction.

The court rejected the notion that the mere presence of an in rem claim amounted to an election to proceed under admiralty jurisdiction as to all claims presented in a complaint.

To the contrary, here Luera clearly expressed her intent that her claims against the in personam defendants were premised on the district court's non-admiralty jurisdiction.  Thus, the court declared, Luera did not make an election to proceed under the admiralty rules for those claims.

The court explained further that the mere presence of admiralty claims in the same complaint as claims premised on non-admiralty jurisdiction did not bar a jury trial.  Case authority made it clear that admiralty claims could be tried to a jury where the parties were entitled to a jury trial on non-admiralty claims in the same case.

The court emphasized that it was not holding that a plaintiff who brought an in rem admiralty claim, or any other claim brought under admiralty jurisdiction, had a right to a jury trial.  No statute, rule, or constitutional provision conferred such a right.  But neither did any statute, rule, or constitutional provision provide the defendants with a right to a bench trial.  The practice of trying admiralty claims to the bench was simply one of custom and tradition, the court wrote.  That tradition could not trump Luera’s constitutional right to a jury trial for her non-admiralty claims.

_________________________

The lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP are aggressive maritime accident trial attorneys who understand the complexities and legalities of maritime law.  Our law firm secured more than $100 million in verdicts or settlements for our clients in 2009.

For a free consultation, call our maritime accident lawyers toll free at (877) 632-8168 or contact us using the form on this page. Our maritime injury attorneys can advise you on all aspects of maritime law, including the Jones Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, the principle of maintenance and cure and the Death on the High Seas Act

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On the morning of March 6, the United States Coast Guard responded to reports of an oil production platform on fire approximately 50 miles off Grande Isle in the Gulf of Mexico.

The response resulted in the rescue of two men who had been aboard the platform, but who abandoned the burning structure in a life capsule.  According to the Coast Guard, the men were recovered from the capsule by a good Samaritan vessel.  From there, the men were hoisted aboard a rescue helicopter and taken ashore for medical treatment.

The blaze occurred aboard the GI 102A production rig owned by Arena Energy, according to a Coast Guard news release.  Arena said the platform had been shut down some two weeks earlier and was not in active production.  The Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement dispatched personnel to the site in order to verify the status of the wells and the platform, and to investigate the cause of the fire.

Fortunately there were no initial reports of any oil spill or other environmental pollution associated with the event.

The fire aboard the idled production rig vividly reflects the perils facing maritime workers each day.

If you or a loved one have been injured in an oil rig or other maritime accident, the aggressive maritime accident trial attorneys of Arnold & Itkin LLP will work to ensure that you receive the compensation you deserve.  Our law firm secured more than $100 million in verdicts or settlements for our clients in 2009.

If you have any questions regarding a maritime incident or have suffered a maritime injury, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation or call our maritime law office toll free at 866-222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Houston maritime attorney Jason Itkin cautions that a workers’ compensation claim headed to the U.S. Supreme Court illustrates the complexity of maritime laws and the need for offshore workers to immediately seek legal help if they are injured.

The Supreme Court said February 22 it would review a claim seeking benefits under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act even though the claimant’s husband was killed while working onshore. The Ninth Circuit Court reinstated the widow’s claim in May 2010 after lower courts issued conflicting opinions.

“It is vitally important that anyone who is injured, or who has had a loved one hurt or killed in connection to a maritime job, seek legal help,” said Itkin, a founding partner of Arnold & Itkin LLP, a personal injury law firm concentrating in maritime law.

“Workers in specialized maritime fields and offshore jobs cannot be expected to know the ins and outs of federal and state laws that are meant to help them. They should seek out maritime accident attorneys who do know these laws and who will protect their rights.”

In the current case, Valladolid v. Pacific Operations Offshore, LLP, No. 08-73862 (9th Cir. May 13, 2010), Luisa Valladolid's late husband, Juan, was a roustabout employed by Pacific Operations Offshore who worked on an oil rig 98 percent of the time. Once every two years, he was dispatched to help at an onshore facility, where he was killed in a forklift accident.

The Ninth Circuit held that the workers’ compensation provision of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act applies to any injury resulting from operations on the outer continental shelf, regardless of the location of the injury.

“The law is often complex and open to interpretation, and specific areas of the law, like maritime law, can be incredibly arcane,” said Itkin, whose firm has recovered millions of dollars in compensation for Gulf Coast workers injured in maritime accidents, both offshore and onshore. “No one with injuries from a maritime accident should have to go it alone in seeking benefits under the Jones Act and other federal laws.”

Itkin and partner Kurt Arnold concentrate in maritime law injuries and accidents and are familiar with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Jones Act, and the Longshore and Harbor Workers Act.

“If you or a loved one has been injured in an oil rig or other maritime accident, you must fight for your rights,” Itkin said. “We at Arnold & Itkin will stand up for you to help you get the compensation you deserve.”

The maritime injury lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP provide legal guidance on all aspects of maritime law and the benefits offshore workers are entitled to under the Jones Act, the Death on the High Seas Act, the principle of maintenance and cure, or the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Arnold & Itkin LLP handles maritime claims at port cities along the Gulf Coast in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The firm can be contacted toll free at (866) 222-2606 or through its website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Houston maritime attorney Jason Itkin today blasted the recent claim by BP that the Gulf Coast Claims Facility has been too generous in determining final payments for victims of the BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill.

“We recognize the obligation of any corporate entity to protect its own financial interests, but this would be laughable if it wasn’t so callous,” said Itkin, a founding partner of Arnold & Itkin LLP. “BP is further damaging its reputation by taking this stand against the people of the Gulf region who have been deeply wounded by this disaster.”

Itkin and partner Kurt Arnold are acknowledged experts in maritime law and the BP Deepwater Horizon spill , having shared their insights about the incident with national and local media in the aftermath of the disaster, including National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered,” CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” the Houston Chronicle and Houston’s ABC television affiliate, among others.

BP recently posted a document to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility website claiming that the Facility’s administrator, Kenneth Feinberg, has artificially inflated future expected losses for victims of the spill, according to the Associated Press (and as noted here).

The government forced BP to set up the $20 billion fund in the wake of the April 20, 2010, BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. Feinberg was installed as administrator of the fund with no guidelines for determining claims. He has come under fire for being too slow to make payments and for paying too little to those awarded payments.

BP’s claims were made February 16, the last day of the public comment period that Feinberg had initiated.

“Every study of this disaster has shown that BP made poor decisions that led to the loss of the oil rig and the contamination of the Gulf,” Itkin said. “Now they show the same attitude of indifference, if not hostility, to the many individuals and business who continue to suffer because of BP’s neglect of safety and propriety in their offshore operations.”

If you have questions about a possible maritime injury claim, for a free consultation call the maritime accident lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at (877) 632-8168, or contact us online. Our maritime injury attorneys can advise you on all aspects of maritime law, including the Jones Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, the principle of maintenance and cure and the Death on the High Seas Act.

The attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP are skilled maritime accident trial lawyers and aggressive offshore injury attorneys for injured shipyard workers. We represent maritime victims in accident, injury and wrongful death claims. Our law firm secured more than $100 million in verdicts or settlements for our clients in 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link