954 F.3d 259
5th Cir.2020Background
- Henry Flores, a quality-assurance/control technician for MMR Constructors, injured his left Achilles on Jan. 20, 2014 while wiring the Big Foot platform during construction at a Corpus Christi Bay shipyard.
- At the time, Big Foot floated on pontoons and was temporarily connected to shore by steel cables and utility lines; it was built to be moved offshore later.
- ALJ found the injury occurred on navigable waters but concluded Flores did not meet the post‑1972 LHWCA "status" test (not a maritime employee).
- The Benefits Review Board reversed, relying on Perini to hold that injury on navigable waters satisfies the status requirement for those traditionally covered pre‑1972.
- MMR appealed, arguing (inter alia) Big Foot was an extension of land or otherwise outside LHWCA coverage and that Perini/coverage raised constitutional/admiralty concerns.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: Big Foot’s attachment was temporary (so waters remained navigable), Perini controls, and MMR was a statutory "employer."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flores/BRB) | Defendant's Argument (MMR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flores was injured on "navigable waters" for LHWCA situs | Big Foot floated in navigable Corpus Christi Bay and was only temporarily tied to shore | Big Foot is not a vessel but should be treated as an extension of land due to attachments | Big Foot was only temporarily attached; Flores was injured on navigable waters (situs satisfied) |
| Whether Perini allows coverage despite failing the post‑1972 status test | Perini preserves pre‑1972 coverage: injury on navigable waters satisfies status for those traditionally covered | Perini shouldn’t expand coverage to cases lacking maritime employment or notice to employer | Perini controls; those injured on actual navigable waters remain covered (here, Flores qualifies) |
| Whether MMR is a statutory "employer" under §902(4) | Because Flores regularly worked on navigable waters and Perini supplies status, MMR had at least one maritime employee | Employer must have an employee who independently meets the post‑1972 status test; otherwise no employer liability | MMR was a statutory employer: Flores’ regular work on navigable waters suffices to satisfy employer requirement |
| Constitutional/admiralty-jurisdiction challenge (Grubart) | Perini and Parker uphold Congress’ power to extend LHWCA coverage to workers injured on navigable waters | Grubart’s maritime‑jurisdiction test limits reach and undermines Perini | Grubart applies to admiralty tort jurisdiction, not LHWCA coverage; Perini remains controlling and constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Dir., OWCP, U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. Perini N. River Assocs., 459 U.S. 297 (1983) (holding that workers injured on actual navigable waters satisfy the LHWCA status requirement as to those traditionally covered pre‑1972)
- Williams v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 452 F.2d 955 (5th Cir. 1971) (an uncompleted, non‑vessel structure on navigable waters can nonetheless satisfy pre‑1972 LHWCA situs)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Shea, 382 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1967) (floating structure permanently affixed to shore is an extension of land and not on navigable waters)
- Peytavin v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 453 F.2d 1121 (5th Cir. 1972) (a floating pontoon fastened by cables to shore is not an extension of land when attachment is not permanent)
- Nalco Chem. Corp. v. Shea, 419 F.2d 572 (5th Cir. 1969) (an employer is covered if at least one employee is engaged in maritime employment in whole or part)
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (establishes location and connection tests for admiralty tort jurisdiction under §1333(1))
- Parker v. Motor Boat Sales Co., 314 U.S. 244 (1941) (upholds Congress’ constitutional authority to extend compensation coverage to workers injured on navigable waters)