Gulf Offshore Workers Deserve Safety Enhancements

A national commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill correctly concluded that the deadly and costly accident was the culmination of years of industry and government complacency and a lack of attention to safety, Texas offshore injury lawyer Jason Itkin said this week.

The report, issued January 11 by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, called for an overhaul of the approach of government and industry to drilling safety.

“We know that lack of attention to safety is dangerous. We’ve represented hundreds of injured offshore workers and repeatedly seen the lack of safety precautions that lead to preventable offshore accidents,” said Itkin, a partner in Arnold & Itkin LLP, a Houston, Texas-based maritime accident and injury law firm that represents several injured Transocean workers.

As offshore platforms drill in deeper waters where most of the oil resources remain, only systematic reforms to industry drilling practices and government oversight will reduce the chances of a future large-scale disaster similar to the Deepwater Horizon, the report concluded.

An explosion and fire aboard the Deepwater Horizon in April 2010 killed 11 maritime workers, injured dozens and created one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. BP was leasing the Deepwater Horizon from Transocean at the time of the fatal offshore accident and drilling about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast.

Houston offshore injury attorney Kurt Arnold, a partner in Arnold & Itkin LLP, said improvements to drilling safety would directly benefit offshore workers and indirectly help other Gulf coast industries.

“We’ve seen the harm the BP oil spill caused working families and many businesses along the Gulf from Texas to Louisiana to Mississippi,” he said. “We understand their struggles because we’ve sat in their homes and on the porches and listened. Everyone benefits from safer drilling practices that preserve clean beaches and open fishing grounds.”

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.

Maritime Law Developments

Capsule reviews of noteworthy admiralty decisions recently handed down by the federal courts and the Department of Labor's Benefits Review Board

Cohabitating fiancée was not decedent's "wife" and thus was ineligible to recover death benefits

Welch v. Fugro Geosciences, Incorporated
Benefits Review Board
No. 10-0381; November 24, 2010
In a per curiam Long Shore Decision, the Benefits Review Board addressed in Welch v. Fugro Geosciences, Incorporated the issue whether a claimant qualified as a decedent's surviving widow entitled to death benefits in accordance with provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.  The decedent, Byron Boswell, was killed in the course of his employment at a time when he was living with his fiancée, Linda Kay Welch.  Byron's employer and its workers' compensation carrier paid and settled various compensation claims, at which point Linda pursued recovery of death benefits.  Linda argued that she was Byron's "widow" for purposes of LHWCA § 9(b) or, alternatively, that she was an "other dependent" as classified under the Internal Revenue Code.  The administrative law judge disagreed and denied death benefits.  The Benefits Review Board affirmed, noting that all pertinent benefits clauses of the LHWCA required that a person be a decedent's "wife" or "husband."  Under state law (that of Louisiana), a marriage ceremony was a requirement for a legally-recognized marriage.  Linda and Byron never participated in a marriage ceremony, with the result that Linda was not Byron's "wife" at the time of his death, and she was not entitled to death benefits in that capacity.  She also did not meet the Internal Revenue Code's definition of a "dependent" of Byron, so that she was not otherwise eligible for benefits on that basis.

No maritime status existed where crew member alleged injury due to unsafe gangway supplied by dock owner

Landers v. Bollinger Amelia Repair, Limited Liability Corporation
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No. 10-30236 (unpublished decision); December 9, 2010
The Fifth Circuit determined in Landers v. Bollinger Amelia Repair, LLC whether a maritime status arose between a dock owner and a docked vessel's crew member.  In this instance, the district court below correctly found that the answer was "no," with the result that there was no admiralty status.  Steve Landers was injured by a gangway supplied by Bollinger Amelia Repair (BAR) after the vessel to which he was assigned moored at a BAR dock facility.  When Landers brought suit against BAR for negligence under maritime law in failing to provide a safe gangway, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of BAR.  The court held that BAR did not have a maritime relationship with Landers, and that any claim under state law already had expired.  On appeal, Landers claimed that by requiring docked ships to use BAR's gangways, BAR stepped into the shoes of a vessel owner and therefore assumed a maritime duty to provide a gangway free from hidden defects under general maritime negligence law.  The Fifth Circuit rejected that notion, refusing to expand maritime jurisdiction in that way.  Instead, the general seaworthiness doctrine is limited to vessel owners and operators, only, and does not extend to dockside repairers.  The court also agreed with BAR that where one of its employees played no role in placing or removing the BAR gangway, its policy that docked ships had to use a BAR gangway was the sort of custom the court had found in the past to be insufficient to create a duty in tort.  The district court thus did not err in finding an absence of maritime jurisdiction and in applying non-maritime law as a basis to dismiss Landers's claim.

"Last employer" rule in LHWCA multi-employer occupational disease action requires sequential evaluation of employer liability

Albina Engine & Machine v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
No. 09-70592; December 10, 2010
In Albina Engine & Machine v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, the Ninth Circuit considered the "last employer" rule in a multi-employer occupational disease case under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.  The widow of a worker who had died of mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure filed a claim for benefits against her husband's three maritime employers.  Upon trial, Albina Engine & Marine was deemed responsible for payment of benefits.  The Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirmed.  The Ninth Circuit disagreed, admonishing that the BRB had erred in rejecting as irrelevant to the issue of liability, in a multi-employer case, the presumption imposed under LHWCA § 20(a).  That presumption provides that, absent substantial evidence to the contrary, a claim for compensation presumably comes within the bounds of LHWCA.    The correct analytical approach in a multi-employer occupational disease action, the court said, was to consider sequentially, starting with the last employer:  whether the § 20(a) presumption successfully was invoked against that employer; whether the employer rebutted the presumption; and if so, whether a preponderance of evidence supported a finding that the employer was liable for the claimant's injury.

Simple post-judgment interest governs interest calculation on LHWCA past due disability payments

Price v. Stevedoring Services of America, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
No. 08-71719; December 15, 2010
In Price v. Stevedoring Services of America, Inc., the Ninth Circuit decided the discrete issue of how interest on past due disability payments under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act is properly calculated.  The answer:  as simple interest at the federal statutory rate for post-judgment interest payable on district court judgments.  After an administrative law judge set an injured worker's average weekly wage and awarded simple interest on past due compensation at the rate set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), the Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirmed, as did the Ninth Circuit.  Section 1961 defined post-judgment interest for purposes of federal judgments, and while it did not apply directly to LHWCA compensation, the BRB had employed the statutory rate for over 25 years.  It was a sensible rate to use, the court also reasoned, given that it was market-sensitive, being tied to the one-year U.S. treasury bill rate.

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.

Arnold & Itkin LLP files Jones Act claim on behalf of 13-year employee denied basic maintenance and cure benefits

Jones Act lawyers Kurt Arnold and Paul Skrabanek of Arnold & Itkin LLP recently filed suit against Ensco International (NYSE: ESV) and Cameron (NYSE: CAM) on behalf of a long-term Ensco employee who was injured onboard one of the company's offshore jack-up rigs. The employee, a Jones Act seaman from Deridder, La., sustained a neck injury while following the instructions of a Cameron man on the rig. The unfortunate situation was made worse when the seaman’s neck was reinjured due to Ensco’s negligence. A loyal employee of longstanding, the plaintiff resisted suing Ensco over the neck injury, but when the company terminated his maintenance and cure benefit despite clear recognition that the injury required neck surgery, he was left with little choice. In the Unites States, admiralty law dictates that it is every shipowner's duty to provide maintenance and cure to crew members who are injured while in service to their vessel.

The case is filed in Harris Country District Court, with the Honorable Patricia Hancock presiding.

Arnold & Itkin LLP Recovers $850,000 for Seaman Injured on an Offshore Jack-Up Rig

Maritime lawyers Cory Itkin and Kurt Arnold recovered $850,000 on behalf of a League City, Texas seaman who slipped on hydraulic fluid. Arnold & Itkin LLP's client was the mate on an offshore jack-up rig. The rig's crane had been leaking hydraulic fluid for days, but his employer faild to fix the problem. As a result of the company's negligence, the injured worker needed back surgery and could not return to work offshore. The case was pending in Texas state court in Galveston County. (Disbursement pending.)