Jeremy Gibson v. American Construction Company, Inc., 49340-3

Background

In Aug. 2013 Gibson (mechanic in marine construction) was injured on a crane barge; American Construction paid medical and disability benefits.
Gibson filed an LHWCA claim; parties agreed to an LHWCA settlement and the Department of Labor district director approved a final compensation order under 33 U.S.C. § 908(i) in Dec. 2015, discharging employer liability under the LHWCA.
In Mar. 2016 Gibson sued under the Jones Act (negligence, unseaworthiness), alleging both sea-based and land-based maritime work.
American moved to dismiss, arguing the LHWCA compensation order barred Jones Act claims via election of remedies, estoppel, and collateral estoppel; the superior court ultimately granted reconsideration and dismissed Gibson’s Jones Act claims with prejudice.
On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals treated the dismissal as a summary-judgment issue and considered whether the LHWCA settlement order precludes Jones Act claims when seaman/non-seaman status was never formally adjudicated.
The court held Gibson’s Jones Act claims were not barred because his seaman status was not formally adjudicated in the LHWCA proceeding and the compensation order did not resolve that issue; credits under 33 U.S.C. § 903(e) prevent double recovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an LHWCA settlement approved by the District Director bars subsequent Jones Act claims when seaman status was not adjudicated	Gibson: no—Gizoni requires formal adjudication of maritime status for preclusion; settlement approval did not decide status	American: yes—the approved compensation order discharged LHWCA liability and should preclude Jones Act claims	Held: No preclusion—because maritime status was not formally litigated/adjudicated, Jones Act claims survive
Whether election of remedies or equitable estoppel bars pursuing Jones Act after accepting LHWCA benefits	Gibson: doctrines do not apply; Congress intended crediting, not forfeiture	American: doctrines bar inconsistent remedies	Held: Rejected—Gizoni precludes applying election/equitable estoppel where full credit prevents double recovery
Whether collateral estoppel applies from the LHWCA compensation order to bar Jones Act claims	Gibson: no—the order contained no findings on maritime status; issue not actually litigated	American: yes—the final compensation order is a conclusive determination	Held: Collateral estoppel does not apply—no actual litigation or necessary determination of seaman status in the LHWCA order
Whether any potential double recovery justifies barring Jones Act claims	Gibson: LHWCA payments will be credited against any Jones Act recovery, removing double recovery concern	American: settlement discharged employer liability so Jones Act suit is barred	Held: Credit under 33 U.S.C. § 903(e) removes double recovery concern; barring is unwarranted without formal adjudication

Key Cases Cited

Sw. Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni, 502 U.S. 81 (1991) (receipt of voluntary LHWCA payments without formal adjudication does not bar Jones Act claims because coverage was not litigated)
Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc., 566 U.S. 93 (2012) (clarifying when informal LHWCA benefits constitute an award)
Figueroa v. Campbell Indus., 45 F.3d 311 (9th Cir. 1995) (LHWCA settlement order that does not address jurisdictional/seaman status does not preclude Jones Act claims)
Simms v. Valley Line Co., 709 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1983) (formal administrative finding of non-seaman status is required for res judicata/collateral estoppel to bar Jones Act claims)
Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548 (1997) (distinguishing LHWCA coverage from seaman status under Jones Act)
Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005) (describing Jones Act and LHWCA as complementary regimes)
B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015) (elements and scope of collateral estoppel)