834 F.3d 542
5th Cir.2016Background
- James Baker worked as a marine carpenter at Gulf Island’s Houma yard building living/operations modules for the Big Foot tension-leg platform (TLP). He claims an on-the-job injury and sought benefits under the LHWCA and, alternatively, the LHWCA as extended by the OCSLA.
- Big Foot’s components were built at multiple locations, assembled in Ingleside, Texas, and towed ~200 miles offshore to be anchored to the OCS; Big Foot is non-self-propelled, has no steering or thrusters, and will be towed to site and remain anchored as a long-term production platform.
- The U.S. Coast Guard classified Big Foot as a "Floating Outer Continental Shelf Facility" and confirmed it is non-self-propelled and must be towed to site.
- An ALJ denied Baker LHWCA benefits, finding Big Foot is not a "vessel" (so Baker is not a shipbuilder under the Act), and denied OCSLA-extended coverage for lack of a substantial nexus between Baker’s injury and OCS extractive operations. The BRB affirmed; Baker appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reviews legal questions de novo where facts are undisputed and applies substantial-evidence review to factual findings; the court affirms the BRB/ALJ rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Big Foot is a "vessel" under 1 U.S.C. § 3 so Baker qualifies as a shipbuilder under the LHWCA status requirement | Baker: Big Foot is a watercraft used in maritime activity; work on its modules is shipbuilding and so LHWCA status applies | Government/Gulf Island: Big Foot lacks indicia of a vessel (no self-propulsion, steering, raked bow); it functions as a fixed work platform once installed, not a means of transportation | Held: Big Foot is not a vessel; Baker does not meet the LHWCA status requirement (no shipbuilder coverage) |
| Whether Baker’s injury (on land while building living quarters) has a "substantial nexus" to OCS extractive operations so OCSLA extends LHWCA coverage | Baker: The modules he built would be integrated into Big Foot, which would operate on the OCS, so his injury is tied to OCS operations | Government/Gulf Island: Baker’s work was land-based, geographically distant, and Gulf Island did not move, install, or operate Big Foot on the OCS; nexus is too attenuated | Held: No substantial nexus; OCSLA extension does not apply to Baker’s injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (Sup. Ct.) (defines "vessel" under 1 U.S.C. § 3 as craft "used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water")
- Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Schwalb, 493 U.S. 40 (Sup. Ct.) (discusses LHWCA coverage expansion to certain land-near-water maritime activities)
- Coastal Prod. Servs. Inc. v. Hudson, 555 F.3d 426 (5th Cir.) (explains situs and status requirements for LHWCA coverage)
- Bernard v. Binnings Constr. Co., Inc., 741 F.2d 824 (5th Cir.) (work platform lacking navigational indicia is not a vessel)
- Smith v. Massman Constr. Co., 607 F.2d 87 (5th Cir.) (caisson used as form/structure is not a vessel)