Hornbeck introduces new Jones Act-qualified MPSV

Posted on January 14, 2010 by Maritime Lawyer

Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. (NYSE:HOS) recently introduced a new multi-purpose support vessel (MPSV) to its fleet.

The new 370-ft HOS Centerline is Jones Act qualified and has an 8,000+ deadweight-ton capacity, which represents the largest and most diverse DP-2 classed offshore supply vessel in operation. The HOS Centerline is the only vessel in the world to have received United States Coast Guard certifications that allow it to conduct operation as a supply vessel, an industrial/construction vessel and as a petroleum and chemical tanker.
New Jones Act vessel HOS Centerline
HOS Centerline’s sister-vessel, HOS Strongline will join the fleet in early 2010. Both vessels will be based at the HOS shore base facility in Port Fourchon, Louisiana.
 
The new vessels have the capacity to transport more than 30,000 barrels of liquid drilling mud and fuel.  One of the largest MPSVs afloat with 8,400 kw of propulsion and DP-2 capability, the vessels are designed to be able to continue cargo transfer operations during sea and weather conditions that prevent smaller vessels from working. The ships’ cargo deck is 240 ft by 58 ft and is complemented by an additional 30-ft by 58-ft of covered deck space. HOS Centerline has accommodations for up to 78 persons, in addition the vessel’s regular crew.

Improving Maritime Safety for Jones Act Seaman

As an advocate for reducing maritime accidents and injuries, the Jones Act lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP strive to improve the lives of Jones Act seamen by driving employers to provide safer conditions for their maritime workers.

Tags: , ,

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

Posted on November 8, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

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.

Tags: , , ,

Arnold & Itkin LLP safeguards injured seamen in and out of the courtroom

Posted on November 2, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

Arnold & Itkin LLP recently filed a Jones Act claim against Tetra on behalf of a Gibson, Louisiana Jones Act seaman who was seriously injured on a derrick barge owned by the company. The injured seaman, employed by the company as a welder, herniated several discs in his neck when he was ordered to move heavy weightlifting equipment. Even though Tetra has refused to pay maintenance and cure benefits as required by admiralty law, Arnold & Itkin LLP's maritime lawyers are proud to stand by their client and help him through these difficult times. The accident occurred in Morgan City, Louisiana, and the case is pending in Galveston County, Texas.

Tags: , , , , ,

Could claim be nullified by the absence of a life jacket?

Posted on October 29, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

A 60-year-old man who fell from a fishing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico about 20 miles off the coast of South Padre Island, Texas, remains missing. The Coast Guard, which received a mayday call from a crewmember on the Si Se Puede minutes before midnight last Saturday night, is searching for the missing man, who was the master of the boat.

An HH-65C helicopter rescue crew and an HU-25 Falcon jet from Air Station Corpus Christi and a 33-foot rescue boat from Station South Padre Island were dispatched to the location from which the call was placed. An 87-foot patrol boat, the Coast Guard Cutter Manatee, also joined the search.

If the accident results in a fatality, legal claims for compensation could be complicated by the fact that the missing seaman was reported to be without a life jacket. A maritime lawyer defending the shipowner could try to prove that the vessel had sufficient life jackets on board, thereby reducing or even nullifying a negligence claim.


Also worth considering:

  • Does the boat have a policy about crew members wearing life jackets? If so, why wasn’t the missing man wearing one? If such a policy was in place and he simply chose not to, could that limit, or perhaps eliminate, the shipowner’s liability. However, ships are required to have life jackets for each person on board, and if a maritime attorney can prove that not enough life jackets were provided, the liability in the case likely would be judged to have fallen back on the vessel’s owner.
  • If life jackets were available and not worn, could the water conditions dictate the level of liability for the owner? A maritime attorney might argue that mild water conditions reduced the need for the missing man to wear his life jacket, but if the vessel has a known or posted policy, that argument likely would carry less weight.
  • Was Si Se Puede seaworthy for the conditions in which it was operating? If the vessel were judged unseaworthy, the shipowner could be deemed negligent, and as such, would likely be liable to compensate the missing man’s surviving family.
  • Did the vessel have adequate gear for handling a man overboard situation, such as a throwable PFD, an emergency beacon (EPIRB), and a MOB recovery system (e.g. Lifesling)? Was the crew adequately trained and prepared for a MOB emergency? Was a crew member designated as a watchkeeper? All of these could have a bearing in determining whether any negligence was involved in this accident or not.

    Since the missing seaman was the master of Si Se Puede, any claims seeking compensation likely would fall under the Jones Act. In order to seek Jones Act coverage, a seaman or his surviving family must prove that the seaman was a “regular” member of a crew in service to a vessel on navigable waters. The current court ruling defines “regular” crew members as employees who spend 30 percent (or more) of their available working time on a single vessel or fleet of vessels under common ownership. Since the accident occurred approximately 20 miles off the coast, the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) would also apply. However, an experienced maritime lawyer would likely prosecute a Jones Act claim due to the higher awards provided to Jones Act seamen or their surviving families under that statute.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

MOB tragedy underscores complexity of maritime law

Posted on October 20, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

An incident occurred last Tuesday off the coast of Massachusetts that highlights the dangers of working in the maritime industry, and also reveals the complex legal issues that come into play when an accident occurs on the water.

Jaime Ortiz, 43, fell off a 39-foot lobster boat based in Gloucester, Mass., prompting an immediate search that included boats owned by local harbormasters, police and numerous local fishermen. Ortiz has not yet been found, and no official statement has been made about his chances of survival. Local officials said the search would continue.

One of the central issues surrounding the incident is the fact that Ortiz reportedly fell overboard “about three miles” off the coast. The three-mile distance from the U.S. shore is critical to the case, because it will help determine which law(s) apply if, in fact, Ortiz is lost at sea and his surviving family decides to file a claim seeking damages and/or future earnings.

 

 

Death on the High Seas Act vs. the Jones Act

If Ortiz is lost at sea and the incident occurred more than three miles from shore, his family may seek remedy under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). DOHSA was passed in 1920 to make it easier for surviving family members of seamen who died while working in international waters to receive compensation for the loss of future earnings by the deceased. If the accident occurred inside the three-mile boundary, Ortiz’s family may ask a Jones Act lawyer to seek remedy under the Jones Act. The Jones Act provides compensation to seamen in the case of an injury or the families of seamen who lose their lives while in service to a vessel, regardless of how far they were offshore when an accident occurs.


Qualifying for Jones Act protection

There are certain qualifiers that affect the Ortiz case, and others like it, in addition to merely the distance between the shoreline and the location of any such incident. DOHSA applies to anyone (e.g. boat owners and operators, crew, passengers, temporary employees, etc.) lost at sea more than three miles offshore. To qualify as a Jones Act seaman, the injured party only has to be a U.S. citizen and a regular crew member of a Jones Act vessel. In order to seek Jones Act coverage, a seaman or his surviving family must prove that the seaman was a ‘regular’ member of a crew in service to a vessel in navigable waters. The current court ruling defines ‘regular’ crew members as employees who spend 30 percent (or more) of their available working time on a single vessel or fleet of vessels under common ownership.

If Ortiz was a regular member of the crew, his family and/or legal representation could demonstrate that to the court through payroll statements, employment records, tax forms, etc. If Ortiz’s body is recovered or if he is presumed dead, and he is proven to have been a regular member of the crew and that he died as a result of negligence by the boat’s owner or crew, his family may be able to expect compensation through the Jones Act.

However, if Ortiz is not a U.S. citizen, or can’t prove that he is a regular member of the crew, or if he is a temporary employee, his case would fail to qualify under the Jones Act. The point is significant because Jones Act claims sometimes offer significant awards to the families of victims, who can sue for punitive damages, pain and suffering, future earnings of the deceased, etc. If Ortiz fails to meet the requirements of a Jones Act seaman and if the incident occurred inside the three-mile barrier from the shore, the victim’s family could come up empty in its attempts to seek compensation under maritime law. But if he meets all of the criteria and the accident is shown to have occurred more than three miles from shore, his surviving family members can file claims under both the Jones Act and DOHSA.


Proof of negligence

To successfully prosecute either a DOHSA or Jones Act case, the victim or his surviving family must prove negligence, either on the part of the boat’s owner or any other member of the crew. If negligence can be proven, Ortiz’s family could qualify for protection under the Jones Act and DOHSA if the incident occurred more than three miles offshore. Negligence could be found in a number of areas, including inadequate training of crew, failure to provide proper safety equipment, allowing a crew member to perform duties that exceed previous training, etc.

Also factoring into the equation is the fact that since both laws fall under maritime law, a victim’s family can file claims immediately, rather than having to wait a up to seven years for a civil court to declare the victim legally dead (also known as “death in absentia”).

A proven maritime lawyer will know the specifics of DOHSA, the Jones Act and their application to the Ortiz case, and has the knowledge to discern whether negligence was involved. An accomplished maritime attorney often will suggest filing immediately in order to allow as much time as possible for the case to be brought to trial before any relevant statute of limitations expires.

 

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Offshore Crew Evacuated after Oil Leak off Australia Coast

Posted on August 26, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

All 69 offshore workers on an oil rig off Australia's northwest coast are safe after they were evacuated from the rig, post a massive oil leak.

The spill is about 8 topical miles long and 30 meters wide, and occurred at the West Atlas drilling rig, which is owned by Norway’s Seadrill. The company that operates the oil rig, PTTEP Australia, is conducting urgent repairs to stop the leak. The leak occurred in an extremely remote location, and this has made any salvage operations difficult. Aircraft are being used to spray chemicals to disperse the oil. Australian maritime safety authorities have initiated a national response plan to limit the impact of the spill in the Timor Sea.

Apparently, a plug on one of the deep wells came loose, causing a leak of oil and gas. However, it is still too early to know what exactly caused the leak, and how long it will take to plug it. Maritime authorities don’t believe that the spill will reach the Australian coast. The slick seems to be evaporating as it is leaking, causing the size of the slick to remain more or less the same size.  According to Bloomberg.com, there were 69 workers on the rig who were evacuated after hydrogen sulphate gas began to leak.

Offshore Workers Work in Hazardous Conditions

It's not difficult to see why workers on an offshore rig work in some of the riskiest conditions. They are confined to a rig in the middle of a vast ocean, several miles from the shore, and are at the constant mercy of the weather and the seas. Offshore Crew EvacuatedAlthough these employees work rotating shifts, and may not spend more than a few weeks on the rig, the few days that they do spend offshore can have them working through conditions that are very vastly more difficult than those on land.  Shifts can be as long as 12 hours, and when there are strong currents, the rig can shift, causing a worker to lose balance if he is not holding on to the railings.

An offshore rig worker may be eligible for Jones Act seaman status, depending on whether he meets the criteria outlined in the 3-part test. He must be assigned to a vessel, the vessel must be in navigation and he must spend a significant  amount of his time performing duties that contribute to the vessel.

The maritime lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP represent workers injured on commercial fishing vessels, cargo ships, tankers, offshore rigs, cruise ships, barges and towboats.

 

 
Tags: , ,

Fisherman Evacuated from Commercial Vessel after Suffering Heart Attack

Posted on August 20, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

A crew member on a commercial fishing vessel had to be medically evacuated by the Coast Guard after he suffered a heart attack on board the vessel.

The crew member fell overboard from the fishing vessel Gaston, while he was engaged in pulling up a dredge. He was immediately rescued, and crew members brought him back on board the vessel. However, he began to experience chest pains and other symptoms of a heart attack. The crew members informed the Coast Guard, and the man was transferred to a rescue boat. He was taken to the Air Station in Cape Cod from where he was airlifted to the hospital. The crewman is believed to be in a stable condition.

Jones Act Seaman

Fishermen on commercial fishing vessels, depending on the nature of their service to the vessel and the amount of time they spend on it, may be eligible for coverage under the Jones Act. Falling ill on a vessel in the vast ocean is a hazard that a merchant seaman constantly faces. Jones Act VesselOut on a tanker, commercial fishing vessel or any other kind of Jones Act vessel, illnesses can strike suddenly and without warning. Seaman may suffer heart attacks, strokes, appendicitis, or other emergency conditions that require urgent medical care. The first few minutes after the symptoms appear, can be crucial. The wrong kind of medical attention or delayed medical care during this time can prove fatal.  

It's an employer's duty to ensure that a sick crew member gets the medical attention he needs. An employer must make arrangements for the seaman to receive specialized care offshore, if necessary. This may involve calling for Coast Guard and rescue help to have the worker airlifted.

Unfortunately, a single crew member who is unable to work due to illness can mean delays and financial losses for an employer. Such employers may try to delay calling for emergency medical help to have a worker moved onshore where he can receive specialized care. There may also be negligence in the kind of medical attention that a Jones Act seaman receives while he is on the vessel. 

Injuries that are aggravated by the negligence of an employer may be mentioned in a claim under the Jones Act. Workers whose symptoms worsen or their condition deteriorate because of delayed medical attention on a vessel, must consult with a maritime lawyer to understand their rights.

 

 
Tags: , ,

Jones Act Seaman Rescued in Chesapeake Bay Turns into Medical Evacuation

Posted on July 30, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

Earlier this week, the Coast Guard responded to a call regarding a boat taking on water. While responding, the Coast Guard was forced to conduct a medical evacuation of one of the crew members after he suffered from a seizure during the rescue process.

The crew of a 55-foot fishing vessel, The Bella, noticed the fishing boat they were towing, the Danna Elizabeth, was taking on water in the Chesapeake Bay. The crew members notified the Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, and the station dispatched a response boat. Jones Act VesselHowever, before the rescue crews arrived, the Danna Elisabeth crew members abandoned the fishing vessel for a life raft. When the rescue boats arrived and began to transfer the crew members to the Bella, one of the seamen, Tony Moliner, began seizing. The Coast Guard rushed Moliner to the Easter Yacht Club after which he was medically evacuated to a Baltimore hospital.

Moliner was lucky that trained rescue crews were at the scene and able to make sure he was safely taken aboard the vessel and transferred for a medical evacuation. The outcome here could have been very different. As an ill crew member of a fishing vessel in distress, Moliner could have been in a very dangerous situation.

Jones Act Seaman Face Many Dangers

This is just one example of the kind of challenges and dangers a Jones Act seaman faces when he sets out on the water. Some others include:

  • Out in the ocean, rescue and emergency medical attention can be delayed for various reasons.
  • Rough seas and harsh weather can make medical evacuation from a Jones Act vessel difficult.
  • Workers can find their anxiety magnified due to the distance from their families and loved ones.

It is during these times of illness and injury that the perils maritime workers face each day, become clear. Knowing that, it is difficult when we, as maritime lawyers, see injured workers struggling to receive compensation after suffering an injury.

 

 

 
Tags: , ,

Body of Maritime Worker Found after Fall off Shrimping Boat

Posted on July 23, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

The body of a shrimper reported missing after he fell off a fishing boat, has been recovered from the Gulf of Mexico. 

According to the South Padre Island Coast Guard station, they received a call on Wednesday morning from the crew of the shrimp boat, Matilda Tower, saying a man had fallen overboard. The crewmember was last seen at about 1:30 that morning. Jones Act ShrimperA helicopter search crew was sent out, and the body was spotted five miles off the coast of South Padre Island. A boat crew was sent to recover the body.

The crewman has been identified as Raul Gonzalez. According to some news reports, officers indicated that the body contained suspicious marks and that there was a possibility this would be treated as a homicide case.  An autopsy has been ordered, and the FBI has been notified of the possibility of a homicide at sea.

Can assault result in a Jones Act claim?

Assault by a crewmember aboard a ship can be a basis for a Jones Act claim. That does not mean every case involving injury and assault by another seaman is eligible for damages, but there are many instances where the ship owner may be liable.

Previous precedents have held ship-owners liable for injuries to a seaman by other crewmembers. In an earlier maritime assault case, the ship owner was held liable for a seaman being stabbed to death by another crewmember. The ship owner was held liable for failing to prevent the assault. In case of assault by another crewmember, a seaman can also recover damages claiming unseaworthiness of the vessel or negligence.

Identifying Maritime Employer Negligence

Identifying employer negligence or proving unseaworthiness in an assault by a crewmember that results in injuries or death of a Jones Act seaman can be a complicated process. Juries and judges are likely to look, not only at the nature of injuries that occurred, but also at the circumstances surrounding the assault, the measures that the ship owners could have taken to prevent such an assault, the negligence of other crewmembers that could have contributed to an injurious assault, etc.  In such cases, seamen will need expert representation by a maritime lawyer.

Tags: , ,

$1.45 million Recovered on Behalf of Injured Jones Act Seaman

Posted on March 23, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

Arnold & Itkin LLP attorneys Jason Itkin, Kurt Arnold, and Cory Itkin recovered $1.45 million on behalf of an injured Jones Act seaman. The case settled just days before going to trial. Our client was severely injured when he fell out of the ship's trash dumpster which had been suspended in the air. He broke his hip and wrist in the fall and developed Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome. He has not been able to return to work.

The shipping company argued that the injured worker had already recovered from his injuries, but had not returned to work beacuse he had been battling alcoholism for several years. Arnold & Itkin LLP showed they were wrong. We also helped our client get the medical treatment he needed and the compensation he deserved. The case was pending in federal court in Balitmore, Maryland.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Arnold & Itkin LLP Maritime Lawyers Recover $825,000 for Roustabout, Injured on an Offshore Drilling Barge"

Posted on March 11, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

Maritime lawyers Cory Itkin and Kurt Arnold of Arnold & Itkin LLP recovered $825,000 on behalf of a raustabout from Lufkin. He was severely injured on an offshore drilling barge when an improperly secured spinner hawk hit him from behind. As a result of the accident, the injured worker needed neck surgery and cannot return to work offshore. The case was pending in Texas state court in Galveston County. (Disbursement Pending.)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Arnold & Itkin LLP Represents Jones Act Seaman, Jasper Smith

Posted on February 10, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

Arnold & Itkin LLP represents Jasper Smith, a Jones Act seaman from Alabama, who was seriously injured while working as a ring setter for Daybrook Fisheries. On September 29, 2008, the captain of his pogey boat crashed their vessel into an Exxon Mobil platform located off the coast of Louisiana. The force of the collision slammed Mr. Smith into a freezer. Arnold & Itkin LLP is proud to help him get the medical treatment he needs for his back injuries and help him get the compensation he deserves for this Jones Act claim.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Arnold & Ikin Lawyers Settle $14 Million Jones Act Seaman Case

Posted on February 10, 2009 by Maritime Lawyer

Attorneys Kurt Arnold, Jason Itkin, and Mike Pierce resolved a Jones Act Seaman injury case for $14 million just two days before going to trial. Arnold & Itkin LLP lawyers represented the seaman after he suffered a head injury on the Hercules 15 inland barge. The Hercules 15 was located in Lake Washington, Louisiana at the time of the incident. The seaman's injury occurred when Hercules employees tack welded a three foot pipe to the derrick and then forgot to remove it before starting drilling operations. The heavy pipe was jarred loose and hit the plaintiff in the head.

The case was filed in Galveston County Court in March 2008. The case was set for trial February 2, 2009. Hercules settled the entire case for $14 million on the eve of trial.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Fishing Boat Catches Fire off Galveston Texas Coast, No Injuries Reported

Posted on December 15, 2008 by Maritime Lawyer

A fishing boat carrying three crew members had to be rescued about 10 miles off the coast of Galveston, Texas after a fire broke out on board, the Houston Chronicle reports.   Fortunately, no maritime injuries were reported as a result of the accident.

The Coast Guard was alerted to the accident when the Houston-Galveston Center received an emergency aid call from another boat about a fire that had broken out aboard the shrimp boat, Master Ryan. A rescue helicopter, a motor life boat and a Coast Guard Cutter were dispatched to the scene of the fire. The helicopter delivered a life raft to the three crew members who then climbed aboard the raft. They were then picked up by another vessel and taken ashore. All crew members were reported to be in good physical condition. The blaze was put out a few hours later. There is no information yet on the cause of the fire.

It's extremely fortunate that the three crew members were able to get the emergency assistance they needed before the accident involved injuries aboard the boat. Any fire aboard a vessel is a serious and dangerous situation. There could have been severe burn injuries as a result of the fire breaking out. For this reason, strict safety precautions must be observed aboard all maritime vessels to mitigate the risk of fire, and all shipboard personnel must be properly trained in fire safety policies and procedures.  Only time and a thorough investigation will tell whether a lack of safety policies, procedures, or training may have contributed to the fire aboard the Master Ryan. 

Fishing Boats and Maritime Law

A fishing boat may be classified as a Jones Act vessel, and as such, workers who are injured in an accident aboard the vessel may qualify for compensation under the Jones Act. The Jones Act defines a seaman as an employee who is working on a vessel in navigable waters, and who is involved in fulfilling the function of the vessel. He must also have a strong enough connection to the boat, meaning that his work must be tangible, and substantial long term work. Under the Jones Act, in addition to medical treatment for his injuries, he may be entitled to maintenance benefits to cover his daily living expenses, including food, house rent and utilities. Unfortunately, fishing boat crew may be confused or unaware of their seaman status under the Jones Act, and may be unaware of the special rights they have under the Act.

Maritime Injury Lawsuits

In the event that an employer provides insufficient benefits to a Jones Act seaman, then the seaman has the right to hire a maritime injury lawyer to bring a claim against the employer. In such cases, the employee may also claim lawyer's fees as part of his claim against his employer.

If you are a seaman and have been injured in an explosion, fire or any other maritime accident, you will need the experience of a Jones Act maritime lawyer to build your case to claim the full compensation you deserve. Contact the maritime lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

 

 

 

 
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Freeport, Texas Oil Rig Dismantled After Injury and Pollution Concerns

Posted on December 8, 2008 by Maritime Lawyer

The last remnants of a dilapidated and unseaworthy vessel, the jack-up oil rig Zeus, that had been left standing in the Freeport channel south of Houston, Texas, have finally been removed, putting an end to two years of concerns over maritime pollution and the potential for injuries that could occur as a result of the toppling of the giant structure.

Zeus Jack-up Drilling Rig - Freeport, Texas

Early in November, Kevin Hoot Construction Co. the company that won the bid to remove the structure completed the final stages of the removal, pulling out the last of the rig's one million pound feet from the sea bed. The feet of the rig are already on their way to junkyards across the state, where they will be cut up to be sold as scrap. A decision on where the rig, a Freeport landmark will finally be laid to rest is yet to be taken. The Zeus Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) had been left standing in the channel, for over 17 years. In 2004, the platform was sold to Sanship Inc. for a sum of$1. For years before that, the 190-feet-tall rig has acted as a beacon for fisherman and jetties, and has been a much-loved part of the Freeport skyline.  Its tearing down has been an emotional experience for most residents. 

The platform would have been left standing for much longer, if it hadn't been for the fact that port officials noticed it was leaking pollutants into the water about two years ago. Soon after, the US Coast guard expressed its apprehension that a tornado or hurricane could cause the structure to collapse, blocking off the mouth of the channel. The owner Emilio Sanchez, was ordered to get the structure dismantled, and when he refused, the Texas Land Office was entrusted with the task of tearing down the platform.

The project was extremely hazardous in nature, and required at least two weeks of preliminary ground work just to make it safe enough for the maritime workers to get up on the rig. Zeus' massive bulk, coupled with its heavily rusted framework made workers extremely susceptible to maritime injuries, but the project was executed successfully. Most of the structure was torn down in time to avoid a possible collapse under the onslaught of Hurricane Ike, which tore through the Texas coastline just a couple of months later. The feet of the rig were the last to go, dug out and dismantled in November.

The giant rig will be missed by Freeport residents, especially its fishing community, but there's no doubt that a major environmental and maritime injury hazard has been eliminated now that the Zeus has finally been laid to rest.

Unseaworthy vessels threaten safety of maritime workers

Unseaworthy vessels like the Zeus jack-up drilling rig can be a serious hazard to maritime workers who operate, maintain, or in the case of the Zeus, demolish them. When the Zeus was operational, maritime workers having a permanent connection to its operation and maintenance would have qualified as Jones Act seamen and been protected under the Jones Act statute. But because the rig is no longer operational, workers in charge of dismantling it would not likely qualify for protection under the Jones Act. They would however likely qualify for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.  The LHWCA provides workers' compensation benefits for maritime workers who are not seamen such as the construction workers involved in the demolition of the Zeus.

Questions about Jones Act Seaman status

Seaman status under the Jones Act is a complex and highly debated topic. Fortunately the Jones Act isn't the only statute that provides protection and benefits for injured maritime workers and their families. If you have been injured in a maritime accident offshore or inshore, a maritime lawyer can help you understand what options you may have under the available statutes for claiming compensation. Contact a maritime lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free initial consultation.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Arnold & Itkin LLP files Jones Act suit on behalf of injured seaman who lost fingers

Posted on November 17, 2008 by Maritime Lawyer

Texas maritime lawyers Kurt Arnold & Mike Pierce filed a Jones Act case on behalf of a 25 year old injured seaman who was working for Noble Corporation.  The seaman was in the Bay of Campeche on an offshore drilling rig when his hand was crushed due to Noble negligence.  He lost three fingers and sustained injuries to the rest of his hand.  Arnold & Itkin LLP agreed to represent the seaman and filed the case in Cameron County, Texas requesting a trial by jury.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Arnold & Itkin LLP file Jones Act lawsuit for injured seaman

Posted on November 2, 2008 by Maritime Lawyer

Arnold & Itkin LLP filed a Jones Act lawsuit today on behalf of an injured worker who suffered crippling injuries as a result of a ship owner’s failure to maintain a seaworthy vessel.  As a result, this hard working man has had a complex back injury.  He may need back surgery and months of therapy just to get his life back on track.  This Jones Act seaman may never be able to work again.  Arnold & Itkin LLP is proud that we will be able to help this man fight to recover his benefits, lost wages, medical expenses, and money for his pain and suffering.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Jones Act protects injured seamen

Posted on May 29, 2008 by Maritime Lawyer

The Jones Act is a US federal law that protects seamen who are injured by the negligence of their employer or a crew member while working in service to a vessel.  For seamen who have questions about the Jones Act, answers can be found in the Jones Act information resources provided by the Houston, Texas maritime law firm of

Arnold & Itkin LLP

The website addresses questions about benefits provided under the law, who qualifies as a Jones Act seaman, and what vessels qualify as Jones Act vessels.

If you have questions about the Jones Act or other areas of maritime law, contact a Jones Act lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP.

Tags: , , , , ,

Seaman injured during winching operation

Posted on February 13, 2008 by Maritime Lawyer

Jones Act lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP represent an injured Jones Act seaman against Central Boats Rental.  The seaman was injured on the MR SID a day after being hired. Central Boats Rental did not train the seaman and he was injured during a winching operation.  He nearly lost his foot and required multiple surgeries to treat his injury.  The seaman's case was filed in Galveston County State Court in Texas within one day of retaining Arnold & Itkin LLP.

 

 

 
Tags: , , , , , ,