The following are digests and case links to Circuit Court Admiralty Cases that have as an issue the Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act:
 

Bath Iron Works Co. v. Director, OWCP
First Circuit Court of Appeals
April 5, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the Benefits Review Board correctly upheld a finding that Bath Iron Works was the last responsible insurer and thus responsible for claimant's benefit payments where the claimant, an employee, was awarded medical benefits in 1991 because of a work-related injury stemming from exposure to asbestos dust and other irritants, which benefits were paid by Bath Iron Works' insurer, and where, four years later, claimant sought and obtained full disability benefits for subsequent exposure to additional irritants at a time when Bath Iron Works was self-insured. 

O'Hara v. Weeks Marine
April 1, 2002
Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Jones Act: To establish seaman status, an employee must establish his or her (1) 'employment-related connection," (2) to a "vessel in navigation." An "employment-related connection" to a vessel exists if two conditions are satisfied: First, the "worker's duties must contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission"; second, the worker's connection to the vessel must be "substantial in both its duration and its nature." Plaintiff was not a seaman because his connection to a vessel was insufficiently substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature.  While Plaintiff spent more than half his working hours during a five-month period aboard the barges, he spent all of that time performing tasks related to repair of the Staten Island pier, while the barges were secured to the pier. Plaintiff further produced no evidence that he derives his livelihood from "sea-based activities." Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: The district court was in error in dismissing Plaintiff's 905(b) claim against Weeks as a vessel owner since a reasonable jury could find based upon the evidence presented that Weeks breached either the "duty to intervene" or the "active control" duty. Weeks further is not entitled to the immunity afforded dual-capacity employers under 905(b) since it was only the vessel owner, not both the employer and vessel owner.

American Stevedoring Ltd. v. Marinelli
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
April 26, 2001

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act:respondent qualified for permanent total disability benefits under the Act because: (i) he was engaged in "maritime employment," 33 U.S.C. § 902(3); (ii) an employer- employee relationship existed, id. §§ 902(2), 902(3), 902(4); (iii) his injury was causally related to his employment, id. § 902(2); and (iv) his injury rendered him permanently and totally unable to perform his job, id. §§ 902(10), 908(a).

Universal Maritime Services Co. v. Spitalieri
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
September 21, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: an employer who paid a claimant compensation benefits for a temporary total disability during a period after he recovered from his injuries and became capable of returning to his usual employment was entitled to a credit for such overpayment to be applied to a schedule award for a permanent partial hearing loss arising out of the same accident.

Gravatt v. City of New York
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
September 18, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: when the employer of an injured harbor worker is also the owner of the vessel and is sued by the harbor worker for negligence under section 905(b) for vessel negligence, the employer will be held liable only where it acted negligently in its vessel owning capacity, and not where its negligent conduct was performed in furtherance of its harbor-working operations; thus since the vessel owner/employer was not engaged in vessel duties at the time of the accident, its liability is limited by the LHWCA to compensation and it may not be held liable in tort to the injured employee. 

Delaware River Stevedores v. Director, OWCP
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
January 30, 2002

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: "In determining the responsible employer in the case of multiple traumatic injuries, if the disability results from the natural progression of an initial injury and would have occurred notwithstanding a subsequent injury, then the initial injury is the compensable injury and accordingly the employer at the time of that injury is responsible for the payment of benefits. If, on the other hand, the subsequent injury aggravates, accelerates, or combines with claimant's prior injury, thus resulting in claimant's disability, then the subsequent injury is the compensable injury and the subsequent employer is fully liable."

Barbera v. Director, OWCP
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
March 12, 2001 

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the Benefit Review Board's decision not to award claimant a de minimis award was in error since de minimis awards are appropriate where a claimant's "work related injury has not diminished his present wage earning  capacity under current circumstances, but there is a significant potential that the injury will cause diminished  capacity under future conditions"; the Board's decision to reduce the award of full attorneys fees to claimant was also in error.

Kreschollek v. Southern Stevedoring
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
July 28, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: since there is no federal government action involved in an insurer's unilateral decision to terminate benefits under the Act, the Act is not unconstitutional on its face in allowing employers and their insurance carriers to terminate payment of workers' compensation benefits without notice.

Custom Ship Interiors v. Roberts
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
August 15, 2002

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: Because per diem payments were disbursed to the Claimant each week despite the fact that the employer knew that he was incurring no food or lodging expenses needing reimbursement, the judgment of the Benefits Review Board that the payments were includable as "wages" under the Act was proper.

Newport News Shipbuilding v. Williams
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
July 11, 2002

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act/Statute of Limitations: The question of whether a Claim has been filed in a timely manner relates to when Claimant knew, or had reason to know, that his injury was likely to impair his earning capacity.  Accepting the ALJ’s findings of fact, Claimant had no reason to know, before July 30, 1997, that his back condition was likely to impair his earning capacity. Therefore, as a matter of law, Claimant had one year from that date, or until July 30, 1998, to file his Claim. His Claim was then filed in a timely manner on August 27, 1997, well within the one-year limitations period.

Newport News Shipbuilding v. Riley
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
June 29, 2001 (Revised)

Longshore & Harbor Worker's Act: claimant made out a prima facie case of disability, and Newport News did not rebut this case by showing that there was suitable alternative employment available either within or without the company; Newport News instead contended simply that claimant was terminated for poor performance, which did not enable Newport News to carry its burden of showing the availability of suitable alternative employment.

Newport News Shipbuilding v. Stallings
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
May 23, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: a small compensation award, based on an actual loss of earning capacity, does not as a matter of law preclude an employer from seeking relief under § 8(f), which limits an employer's compensation liability to two years of benefits when a preexisting disability substantially aggravates a work-related injury.

Newport News Shipbuilding v. Stilley
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
March 12, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: under the "last maritime employer" rule, the last employer covered by the LHWCA who causes or contributes to an occupational injury is fully liable for compensation benefits; the rule applies here and is not inequitable even though a subsequent non-maritime employer contributed to the claimant's injury.

DOWCP v. Newport News Shipbuilding
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
October 12, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: in considering whether Newport News could amend its original § 8(f) claim for Special Fund relief to include a new ground for relief based on a pre-existing back condition subsequent to the district director's consideration of the claim, the court remanded the case for a determination whether Newport News could not have reasonably anticipated the liability of the Special Fund for the back injuries because it was unaware of critical information concerning the injuries before referral of the case to the Office of Administrative Law Judges.

Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. v. Faulk
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
September 25, 2000 (Revised)

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the Administrative Law Judge's factual findings that supported a determination that Norfolk Shipbuilding was the last responsible employer under the Act, and thus liable for the full amount of the claim, were supported by substantial evidence and were therefore not reversible on appeal. 

White v. Bethlehem Steel Co.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
August 2, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: plaintiff longshore worker's tort claim against Bethlehem Steel was properly dismissed since he was under the authoritative direction and control of Bethlehem at the time of his accident, thus he was Bethlehem's borrowed servant and the Act is his exclusive remedy. 

Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring v. Director, OWCP
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
June 5, 2002

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: Title 33 U.S.C. § 914(j) does not entitle an employer to a credit or offset against a widow's death benefits for the overpayment of disability benefits erroneously awarded by an administrative law judge.

Weaver v. Director, OWCP
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
February 26, 2002

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: Attorneys fees incurred by the claimant within the 30 day window stipulated by 33 U.S.C. § 928(a) may be assessed against the employer. If the employer denies a claim within the 30 day window, and the other triggers have been satisfied, the fees accrued thereafter properly may be assessed against the employer, even though they are incurred before the thirtieth day following receipt of notice.

Dahlen v. Gulf Crews, Inc.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
February 4, 2002

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act/Charter Parties: The standard of care owed a longshore worker by a vessel owner as articulated in Scindia and Howlett does not explicitly apply to time charterers. But, as no other case articulating the duty owed by a time charterer in such a situation could be found, the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a jury instruction that applied Scindia to the time charterer. Indemnity: The vessel owner did not owe the time charterer an indemnity under the charter's indemnity and insurance clause since the injury to Plaintiff did not arise out of or relate to the performance of the vessel during the charter. Admiralty Jurisdiction/Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"): The district court erred in applying the Admiralty Extension Act, 46 U.S.C. § 740, and maritime law since Plaintiff's alleged injury was not caused by the defective appurtenance of a ship on navigable waters and, furthermore, the OCSLA specifically regards the artificial islands on the OCS as areas where state law should apply unless there is a conflict with federal law. 

Pool Co. v. Cooper
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
November 20, 2001 

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the formalized claim withdrawal provision of 20 C.F.R. § 702.225(a) did not prevent the claimant from amending his claim at the hearing, but because the scope of the amendment was in doubt, the matter would be remanded so that the ALJ may resolve whether the claimant effectively withdrew his claim to compensation for the period of February 28, 1994 to March 3, 1994. 

Pickett v. Petroleum Helicopters
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
September 28, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act/Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"): claimant spouse could not recover under the Longshore Act as applied by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"), 43 U.S.C. § 1333(b), since her husband's death from a helicopter crash occurred over land and not over the Outer Continental Shelf.

Temporary Employment v. Trinity Marine Group
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
August 7, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the Benefits Review Board lacked jurisdiction to resolve the contractual indemnity issue between the employment agency and the employer, thus the final order of the Benefits Review Board holding the employment agency liable in indemnity for compensation owed the longshore employee was vacated.

Garcia v. Amfels, Inc.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
June 19, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act/Procedure: since the law in the Fifth Circuit was clear that the LHWCA does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction when raised as a defense, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded plaintiffs their attorneys fees and costs resulting from defendant's wrongful removal of plaintiffs' state court case brought under state law to the district court.

Demette v. Falcon Drilling Co.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
June 12, 2001

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"): the OCSLA applies to an injury suffered on the Fal-Rig #85 since it was jacked-up over the OCS at the time of Demette's injury and it was therefore a device "temporarily attached to the seabed" for the purpose of drilling for oil under section 1333(a)(1) of the Act; further, since the contract for oil drilling services and the injury that invoked it were maritime in nature, maritime law applies of its own force and Louisiana state law does not apply under section 1333(a)(2) of the Act; Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act/Indemnity: since section 1333(b) of the OCSLA extends the LHWCA to non-seamen employed on the OCS, Demette is entitled to LHWCA benefits "by virtue" of the OCSLA; in such a case, the LHWCA provides that reciprocal indemnity provisions between the employer and the vessel owner are enforceable, although section 905(b) of the LHWCA ordinarily bars the enforcement of indemnity agreements between employers and vessel owners; thus, since Demette's employer and the vessel owner each promised to indemnify the other, the indemnification is reciprocal and therefore valid and enforceable.

Galle v. Director, OWCP
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
March 26, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the ten-day time period for the filing of motions for reconsideration of an ALJ's decision, as set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 802.206(b)(1), must be calculated using the computation method set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), which requires that weekends and holidays be excluded when calculating time periods of less than eleven days.

Ceres Marine Treminal v. Hinton
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
March 8, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: under the Act's aggravation rule, 33 U.S.C. § 908(f), if an employment injury aggravates, accelerates, exacerbates, contributes to, or combines with, a previous infirmity, disease or underlying condition, the employer is liable for compensation for, not just the disability resulting from the employment injury, but the employee's total resulting disability; where certain conditions are met, § 8(f) limits an employer's compensation liability, with any additional compensation being paid from a special fund established under the Act; any request for § 8(f) relief must be presented to the District Director and failure to make such request shall be an absolute defense to special fund liability, thus the ALJ did not err in rejecting as untimely the Employer's  § 8(f) claim, presented for the first time on a motion for modification of the ALJ's decision; further, the ALJ did not err in concluding that claimant was permanently and totally disabled and that no suitable alternative employment was available.

In re ADM/Growmark River System
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
November 30, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act/Indemnity: a dual capacity employer sued pursuant to section 905(b) of the Act for negligence in its capacity as vessel owner may terminate its rights to contribution from another vessel by agreeing to contractually indemnify that vessel, thus the indemnity provisions relevant to this case are valid to the extent that they preclude a contribution claim by the vessel owner employer against the other vessel.

Staftex Staffing v. DOWCP
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
July 25, 2000 (Revised)

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the Administrative Law Judge's calculation of the average weekly wage for compensation purposes was upheld, but the award of attorneys fees to the claimant was reversed since the claimant failed to submit the question of average weekly wages to an informal conference.

Flanagan Stevedores, Inc. v. Gallagher
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
July 14, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the Court upheld the Administrative Law Judge's award which: entitled claimant to two periods of disability, calculated claimant's weekly wage for determining the disability award, awarded claimant penalties for late payment of compensation and awarded claimant attorneys fees.

Louisiana Ins. Guaranty Assoc. v. Bunol & DOWCP
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
May 12, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the Benefit Review Board's determinations concerning the casual relationship between the claimant's disability and a work-related injury, the extent of that disability, the  situs of the injury and the claimant's residual wage earning capacity were all supported by substantial evidence and were in accordance with the law, thus they were affirmed on appeal.

Pool Company v. DOWCP
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
March 23, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: a claimant seeking compensation for the loss of use of a scheduled member resulting from an injury to an unscheduled body part may recover only under §908(c)(21), which applies to injuries not included within the scheduled injuries list.

Ingalls Shipbuilding v. Wooley
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
March 2, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the claimant's vacation pay was correctly included in determining the average daily wage for compensation purposes. 

Henry v. Coordinated Caribbean Transport
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
February 18, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: an agreed settlement between the parties that has not been approved by the District Director under 33 U.S.C. 908(i) is unenforceable.

DAUL v. DOWCP
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
December 8, 1999

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: a salesman injured on navigable waters was barred from coverage pursuant to the vendor exclusion provision of the Act. 

Sestich v. Long Beach Container Terminal
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
May 20, 2002

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: The claimant's "wage-earning capacity" within the meaning of the Act is equal to his actual post-injury earnings, and he is entitled to two-thirds of the difference between his "wage-earning capacity" and his pre-injury "average weekly wages." Thus because claimant's post-injury "wage-earning capacity" exceeded his pre-injury "average weekly wages," the Board properly held that Claimant was not entitled to benefits.

Johnston v. Director, OWCP
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
February 22, 2002

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: In a situation where actual wages have remained constant, a claimant's post-injury earnings need not be adjusted for inflation. Under such circumstances, the actual wages without adjustment for inflation "fairly and reasonably represent [the claimant's] wage-earning capacity" as required by 33 U.S.C. § 908(h).

Christensen v. Georgia Pacific Co.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
February 1, 2002

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: Plaintiff longshoreman was injured while helping to retie the Asian Hawk, a vessel which he was working for and which had broken free from the dock during heavy weather. He filed negligence claims against the Asian Hawk's owner, a second vessel that had been tied to the same cleat on the dock, and the dock owner. Plaintiff's claim against the Asian Hawk was wrongly dismissed by the district court since the vessel did owe a duty to Plaintiff under Scindia's active control duty and the intervention duty. Further, the second vessel, while not owing Plaintiff any Scindia duties, did owe under the Longshore Act a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. Maritime Torts: Plaintiff's claim against the dock owner may not be brought under the Longshore Act, but may be brought as a maritime tort under general maritime law. Proximate Cause: The district court's conclusion that Plaintiff's back injury was not a foreseeable result of Defendants' acts was also in error. Proximate cause is a means of cutting off liability for consequences that are so far removed from the conduct at issue that there is no justification for imposing liability. Giving inferences to Plaintiff, there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff's injury falls into this category.

Matson Terminals v. Werner Berg
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
January 29, 2002

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: because the injuries to claimant's two knees are discrete injuries under 33 U.S.C § 908(f), the Board was correct in imposing two 104 week liability periods on the employer; it is irrelevant that the injuries arose from the same working conditions or that they arose from a single cause or trauma. 

Deweert v. Stevedoring Services
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
November 29, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the ALJ calculated Petitioner's wage earning capacity by averaging his actual wages from the date of injury to the present and concluded that the resulting figure was higher than Petitioner's pre-injury average weekly wage and that Petitioner had not suffered a loss in wage-earning capacity, thus the award of only a nominal sum of of $1 per week for Petitioner's lost wages claim was justified.

Rodriquez v. Bowhead Transportation Co.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
October 26, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act/Charter Parties: the time charterer of the vessel did not violate any of the Scindia duties owed by a vessel to a longshore worker and thus was not liable for the injuries suffered by the injured worker; further, the terminal services agreement between the time charterer and the stevedore employer plainly did not obligate the time charterer to supervise the manner in which the stevedore's employees loaded the cargo.

Gilliland v. E. J. Bartels Co.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
October 16, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: when a claimant receives a tort recovery from a third-party defendant for which an employer or carrier is entitled to an offset under 33 U.S.C. § 933(f), and the award includes periodic payments, the employer may take a dollar-for-dollar credit for each payment at the time the claimant receives it, whether or not the employer elects to fund those periodic payments by purchasing an annuity.

Marine Power v. DOL
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
January 31, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: an employer is not eligible for second-injury relief under 33 U.S.C. 908(f) because the employee's current disability is not substantially and materially greater as a result of the pre-existing condition.

Taylor v. Director OWCP
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
January 28, 2000

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: the claimant's spouse was not a "person entitled to compensation" when she entered into settlement agreements with third parties, thus her husband's employer was not entitled to an offset for the settlement amount.

Bianco v. Georgia Pacific Co.
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
September 3, 2002

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: To be eligible for benefits under the Act, a work-related injury must occur "upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel)." 33 U.S.C. § 903(a).  Although claimant was injured at a sheet rock production plant that adjoined the navigable waters of the United States, the location of her injury was not in an area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel. Claimant was therefore not covered by the Act. 

Snowden v. Director, OWCP
District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals
June 19, 2001

Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act: notwithstanding the general grant of jurisdiction to the Benefits Review Board contained in 33 U.S.C. 921(b)(3), actions concerning orders declaring default in the payment of installments due under the Act are to be brought in the district court and, only subsequent thereto, by appeal to the appropriate court of appeals; thus the Benefits Review Board erred by asserting jurisdiction and overturning a supplementary compensation order of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.