Keller Foundation/case Fndn v. Joseph Tracy, 696 F.3d 835

Tracy seeks Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act coverage for injuries incurred 1998–2002 while employed by Global International Offshore Ltd., under the Act’s last-employer rule.
Tracy previously worked for Keller Foundation; disability attributed to cumulative trauma across Keller and Global, raising last-employer liability questions.
Two contested Iroquois assignments: in Louisiana shipyard (first three weeks) and then at sea, with later assignment to the Seminole in Malaysia, all tied to the Iroquois’s mission.
Later, Tracy performed land-based duties in Indonesia and Singapore ports during monsoon seasons, arguing situs coverage extended to foreign-adjacent areas.
ALJ found Tracy’s disability from cumulative trauma but held no coverage by the Act during Global employment; BRB affirmed.
Tracy challenged estoppel claims, arguing Global’s contract provision promised LHWCA coverage; BRB and ALJ rejected estoppel due to lack of detrimental reliance and statutory limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Tracy satisfy the status test during the Iroquois assignment?	Tracy was a seaman during the Louisiana shipyard period and thus not subject to LHWCA status.	Tracy’s duties in Louisiana contributed to the Iroquois’s mission, not land-based work, so he remained outside LHWCA seaman status.	Tracy did not satisfy status; he was a seaman in being for the Iroquois, thus not an LHWCA employee during that period.
Whether Tracy satisfied the situs test for injuries in Indonesia/Singapore ports.	Navigable waters include high seas and foreign territorial waters, extending LHWCA coverage to adjoining foreign land areas.	Extrateritorial application requires clear congressional intent; foreign territorial waters are not navigable waters under the Act.	No, foreign territorial waters and adjoining lands are not navigable waters under the Act; situs coverage does not apply.
Whether equitable estoppel bars denial of coverage based on contract language.	Global’s contract promise that compensation would be payable under the worker’s country laws estops denial of LHWCA coverage.	No detrimental reliance shown; contract language is ambiguous and does not guarantee LHWCA coverage.	Equitable estoppel does not apply; Tracy failed to show detrimental reliance and statutory eligibility.

Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (Supreme Court 1995) (two-prong seaman test: function and substantial connection to vessel)
Nacirema Operating Co. v. Johnson, 396 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1969) (broadens situs to landward areas near navigable waters)
Saipan Stevedore Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 133 F.3d 717 (9th Cir. 1998) (extension of coverage to high seas context for LHWCA)
Kollias v. D&G Marine Maintenance, 29 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1994) (DOI for high seas coverage analysis (DOHSA reference in discussion))
Desper v. Starved Rock Ferry Co., 342 U.S. 187 (Supreme Court 1952) (describes 'seaman in being' vs. expectant seaman framework)
Heise v. Fishing Co. of Alaska, 79 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 1996) (desistance of Jones Act coverage when vessel not afloat)
Rambo v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 81 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 1996) (four-element equitable estoppel test)
Metro. Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121 (1997) (supreme court reaffirming estoppel framework)
Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (S. Ct. 2010) (presumption against extraterritoriality in statutory interpretation)