930 F.3d 733
5th Cir.2019Background
- Malta, a warehouseman employed by Wood Group, worked on the fixed Black Bay Central Facility in Louisiana territorial waters; he lived and worked on the multi-platform facility and never worked on satellite platforms.
- Central Facility has a warehouse, three cranes, a full-time crane operator, and functions as a hub to load/unload supplies for satellite production platforms; Malta spent ~25–35% of each 12‑hour hitch loading and unloading vessels.
- Malta was injured on the platform while removing a CO2 canister that was lifted by crane from a third‑party vessel; the canister exploded.
- He filed for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). The ALJ first denied coverage (finding no covered situs), the Benefits Review Board reversed and remanded; on remand the ALJ and Board found both situs and status satisfied.
- Wood Group petitioned for review to the Fifth Circuit, arguing the platform lacked a maritime purpose (situs) and Malta’s loading/unloading was not maritime cargo or connected to maritime commerce (status). The court denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Malta) | Defendant's Argument (Wood Group) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Malta’s injury occurred on a covered situs under §903(a) ("other adjoining area customarily used in loading/unloading a vessel"). | Central Facility (or the area where Malta worked) is customarily used to load/unload vessels; Malta was injured while unloading a vessel. | The platform’s primary purpose is oil and gas production (non‑maritime); Thibodeaux bars coverage for production platforms; nature of items (not maritime cargo) matters. | Situs satisfied: geographic nexus exists and the functional prong met because the site was customarily used for loading/unloading vessels; Thibodeaux distinguished. |
| Whether the nature of items loaded/unloaded (not traditional "maritime cargo") defeats situs/status. | Nature of the items is irrelevant when area is customarily used for loading/unloading; Malta performed core loading/unloading duties. | Items were supplies for oil production (not cargo in the stream of maritime commerce), so loading/unloading is non‑maritime. | Rejected: court refused to graft a maritime‑cargo requirement onto the statute; plain text controls. |
| Whether Malta satisfies maritime status under §902(3) (occupational test focused on loading/unloading). | Malta regularly performed loading/unloading (25–35% of time) and was unloading at time of injury; satisfies status either by activity at time of injury or by employment as a whole. | Malta’s loading/unloading merely furthers non‑maritime oil production and is incidental; not directly connected to maritime commerce. | Status satisfied: regular and actual loading/unloading (and injury while unloading) meets the occupational test; connection to maritime commerce need not be the defendant’s asserted maritime‑cargo theory. |
| Whether precedent (Hudson, Martin, Munguia, Thibodeaux, etc.) requires narrowing coverage here. | Precedent allows coverage where claimant engages in essential elements of loading/unloading on a situs customarily used for that purpose. | Prior cases indicate limits where loading/unloading is fleeting, incidental, or disconnected from maritime commerce. | Court distinguishes those precedents on facts and declines to extend them to negate coverage; applied statute’s plain language liberally. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Schwalb, 493 U.S. 40 (Sup. Ct.) (LHWCA situs extended to areas integral to loading/unloading; statute construed liberally)
- Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249 (Sup. Ct.) (loading/unloading defined as moving cargo from ship to immediate storage/holding area)
- Herb’s Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414 (Sup. Ct.) (LHWCA compensates persons engaged in maritime employment)
- Perini North River Associates v. Director, OWCP, 459 U.S. 297 (Sup. Ct.) (interpretive guidance on statutory coverage issues)
- Thibodeaux v. Grasso Production Mgmt., Inc., 370 F.3d 486 (5th Cir.) (distinguishing fixed oil production platforms as non‑maritime where accident not at docking/loading area)
- Coastal Production Servs., Inc. v. Hudson, 555 F.3d 426 (5th Cir.) (situs and status analysis for fixed platforms and loading operations)
- BPU Mgmt., Inc. v. Director, OWCP (Martin), 732 F.3d 457 (5th Cir.) (narrowing "unloading" when material has left the unloading process)
- Munguia v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 999 F.2d 808 (5th Cir.) (distinguishing fleeting or personal‑gear loading/unloading from maritime activity)
- Gilliam v. Wiley N. Jackson Co., 659 F.2d 54 (5th Cir.) (use of unloaded materials after docking does not necessarily defeat coverage)
- Boudloche v. Howard Trucking Co., 632 F.2d 1346 (5th Cir.) (status can be satisfied even if claimant spent a small percentage of time loading/unloading)