William Clark v. American Marine & Salvage, LLC, 494 F. App'x 32

American Marine employed Clark in Mobile, Alabama to operate the office, respond to calls, prepare invoices, and perform most diving, welding, and vessel repairs.
Clark also mowed grass and repaired a company work barge; he did not reside or work primarily on either vessel.
Clark kept a diary showing 768.5 total hours worked, with 159 hours repairing the work barge, 35.5 hours on a dive boat, and 34.5 hours on the barge at a dock.
He largely performed repairs from land or a customer’s vessel, traveling by land to sites and entering the water to perform repairs before returning home or to the office.
Clark sustained injuries in 2010 while working on a boat and back injuries in 2010 while on shore; his resignation occurred May 15, 2010.
The district court granted summary judgment for American Marine, holding Clark did not qualify as a seaman because his work had insufficient substantial connection to a vessel in navigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clark is a seaman under the Jones Act	Clark contends his work on the work barge and as a diver connected him to a vessel.	American Marine argues Clark spent little time in navigation and worked primarily on land, lacking substantial vessel connection.	Clark is not a seaman; no substantial connection to a vessel in navigation.

Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (two-part seaman test; substantial connection required)
Papai, 520 U.S. 548 (1997) (connection to vessel must be substantial in duration and nature)
Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) (seaman must do ship's work; not all maritime risks suffice)
Wallace v. Oceaneering Int'l, 727 F.2d 427 (5th Cir. 1984) (diver at sea with substantial at-sea work can support seaman status)
In re Endeavor Marine Inc., 234 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2000) ( crane/barge context for seaman status considerations)