863 F.3d 1168
9th Cir.2017Background
- Edwin Jetnil, an RMI (Republic of the Marshall Islands) citizen, worked for Chugach on U.S. government contracts in the Kwajalein Atoll and was assigned to an uninhabited Gagan Island for a multi-day work detail where Chugach provided transport, housing, and food.
- After hours on the assignment, Jetnil went reef fishing (a common Marshallese activity), slipped on coral, cut his foot, developed a severe infection, and underwent a below-knee amputation.
- Jetnil filed for disability benefits under the Defense Base Act (DBA); Chugach controverted, arguing the injury did not arise in the course of employment because Jetnil was a local national injured in his home country.
- An ALJ awarded medical benefits and temporary total disability under the DBA, applying the judicially created “zone of special danger” doctrine; the BRB affirmed, holding the doctrine can apply to local nationals depending on the facts.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the zone of special danger may apply to local nationals and whether substantial evidence supported the award; it denied the petition for review and affirmed the ALJ/BRB decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jetnil) | Defendant's Argument (Chugach/Zurich) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the zone of special danger doctrine may apply to local nationals employed in their home country under the DBA | Zone of special danger can apply to local nationals; DBA text and precedent support coverage | Doctrine applies only to employees sent abroad, not to local nationals injured in their home country | The doctrine may apply to local nationals; DBA does not distinguish domiciliary status and Congress implicitly endorsed coverage by reenacting coverage for local nationals |
| Whether Jetnil’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment (i.e., within a zone of special danger) | Injury occurred during a foreseeable, reasonable recreational activity while on an employer-directed remote assignment | Reef fishing was non-work, personal activity and thus outside the course of employment | Substantial evidence supports ALJ/BRB that Jetnil’s injury arose within a zone of special danger and is compensable under the DBA |
| Whether application would create overbroad, 24/7 liability for employers | N/A (Director/Jetnil argue doctrine is fact-specific and won’t produce absurd results) | Applying doctrine to local nationals would impose effectively strict, around-the-clock liability | Court rejected the slippery-slope argument, emphasizing fact-specific analysis and limits of the doctrine |
| Whether statutory schemes or other statutes (e.g., WHCA) bar extending the doctrine to local nationals | DBA’s text and legislative history permit local-national coverage; other statutes are distinct | Extending the doctrine conflicts with the intent of overseas compensation schemes and WHCA exclusions | Court found no conflict; differences in statutory schemes support allowing DBA coverage for local nationals |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504 (1951) (articulated the “zone of special danger” test for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment)
- Kalama Servs., Inc. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 354 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2004) (applies zone-of-special-danger doctrine to recreational risks in remote work settings and explains substantial-evidence review)
- O’Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Assocs., Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965) (applied zone-of-special-danger principles to a drowning on foreign assignment)
- Ford Aerospace & Commc’ns Corp. v. Boling, 684 F.2d 640 (9th Cir. 1982) (discusses remote-location conditions supporting special-danger analysis)
- Battelle Mem’l Inst. v. DiCecca, 792 F.3d 214 (1st Cir. 2015) (describes zone-of-special-danger coverage as risks occasioned by employment abroad and analyzes its factual application)