Position paper presented at CSIMS 2024 by Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Friends Research Institute (friendsresearch.org) Disclaimers: The opinions expressed in this article...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 8 August 2024 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The June 13, 2024 edition of the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
LexisNexis has selected some of the top “noteworthy” panel decisions issued by the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board during the period January through June 2024. The first...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It is well understood that the California Insurance Guarantee Association...
Noting that whether a vessel is or is not “in navigation” for Jones Act purposes is a fact-intensive question normally for the jury, and not the court, to decide, a Texas court reversed a state trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to the defendant in a Jones Act case filed by a welder working on the Artic Challenger,The defendant contended the welder was not a Jones Act seaman because the Artic Challengerwas not a vessel “in navigation” when the welder was injured and that the welder’s work as a shore-based welder did not contribute to the Arctic Challenger’s mission. Observing that the Arctic Challengerhad been on four sea trials before the welder’s injury and that there was evidence that it was in compliance with pertinent regulations, the appellate court said that defendant had not shown, as a matter of law, that it was not a Jones Act “vessel.” There was other evidence that at the time of the injury, the “vessel” was in the hands of its end user and operator and was fully functional and suitable for deployment for its intended purpose on the Outer Continental Shelf. Summary judgment was not appropriate.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Partin v. Superior Energy Servs., 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 6334(Aug. 14, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 146.02.
Source:Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law