Johnson v. Cooper T. Smith Stevedoring, 74 F.4th 268

Johnson, a longshoreman, worked sporadically for Cooper at its Darrow midstream facility (since 1998; regularly since 2008).
Cooper owns the weigh-station vessel AMERICA used in midstream cargo transfers; Cooper also hires longshoremen per-day via the union hall and has full-time crew assigned to AMERICA.
On June 22, 2018, Johnson fell from a cargo barge to AMERICA while removing a ladder (owned/stored on AMERICA) and alleged he slipped on cargo/grain dust on the barge deck; he suffered serious injuries.
Johnson recovered LHWCA benefits from Cooper, then sued asserting Jones Act negligence, maintenance and cure, and unseaworthiness (seaman claims) based on alleged status as a seaman aboard AMERICA; alternatively he pleaded a §905(b) vessel-negligence claim.
The district court granted summary judgment for Cooper, finding Johnson presented no genuine dispute of material fact on seaman status or vessel negligence; Johnson appealed.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding Johnson failed to show a substantial-duration connection to AMERICA and produced no record evidence of vessel negligence under §905(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Seaman status (Jones Act, maintenance & cure, unseaworthiness)	Johnson argued his long history working midstream for Cooper and that he rode the crew boat to AMERICA show a substantial connection to AMERICA.	Cooper argued longshoremen are assigned only discrete tasks, are not crewmembers of AMERICA, and Johnson lacked a substantial-duration connection to the vessel.	Held: No genuine dispute—Johnson failed to show a substantial connection in duration to AMERICA; seaman claims dismissed.
Vessel negligence under 33 U.S.C. §905(b) (alternative)	Johnson asserted Cooper breached Scindia duties (turnover and active control) causing his fall.	Cooper argued Johnson cited no record evidence of vessel negligence and §905(b) does not apply to longshoremen employed by the vessel to provide stevedoring services in the asserted manner.	Held: No genuine dispute—Johnson pointed to no evidence of breach of Scindia duties; §905(b) claim dismissed.
Exclusivity of LHWCA (33 U.S.C. §905(a))	Johnson did not contest on appeal.	Cooper argued LHWCA exclusivity bars general maritime negligence because Cooper secured LHWCA payments.	Held: Issue waived on appeal; district court dismissed general maritime negligence as barred by §905(a).

Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (defining two-part seaman test: contribution and substantial connection in duration and nature)
Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Tex., L.L.C., 997 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. en banc) (refining the "nature" factors for substantial connection)
In re Endeavor Marine Inc., 234 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2000) (illustrative of sufficient-duration connection where worker spent almost all time aboard)
Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (establishing shipowner duties to longshoremen: turnover and active control)
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (summary-judgment principle: nonmovant must produce specific evidence; conclusory assertions insufficient)
Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871 (summary judgment/standing principles cited re: absence of proof)
McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (describing scope of who may qualify as a seaman)