CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 7 July 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...
Havanis v. Calif. Dept. of Transportation (Board Panel Decision) By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board I. Medical apportionment is not the...
By Robert G. Rassp, author of The Lawyer’s Guide to the AMA Guides and California Workers’ Compensation (LexisNexis) Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are...
Oakland, CA – Private self-insured claim volume in the California workers' compensation system fell 9.5% in 2023, producing the biggest year-to-year decline in private self-insured claim frequency...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No matter the source of your media consumption, it seems that the topic...
A worker employed on “the Mad Dog,” an oil and gas spar platform in the Gulf of Mexico on the Outer Continental Shelf and injured when he was testing one of the Mad Dog’s lifeboats was not a “seaman” under the Jones Act and his Jones Act claim could not proceed, held a federal district court recently, because the oil drilling platform upon which he worked was not a vessel, but rather a permanent structure attached to the seabed. The platform, which had no steering mechanism, system of self-propulsion, or raked bow, was capable of movement in a 180-to-221 foot radius, but had not moved in four years. Citing Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481, 490, 125 S. Ct. 1118, 160 L. Ed. 2d 932 (2005), the district court stated that a watercraft was not capable of being used for maritime transport in any meaningful sense if it had been permanently moored or other rendered incapable of transportation or movement. Since the Mad Dog was tethered to the seabed 4,500 feet below by eleven polyester rope and chain mooring lines, it was not practically capable of maritime transportation and the injured worker was, therefore, not a Jones Act seaman, and his claims under the Jones Act failed.
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Riley v. Alexander/Ryan Marine Servs. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152742 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 24, 2013) [2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152742 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 24, 2013)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 146.02 [146.02]
_____________________________________________________________________
Special Discount Price $79*; Books shipping now to customers!
Keep track of how the workers' comp landscape is changing with this 400+ page compendium. Here's what you get:
View the brochure & table of contents.
View sample pages.
Order online or contact Christine Hyatt at ph. 937-247-8166, or Email: Christine.E.Hyatt@lexisnexis.com.
PROMO CODE: WCEIA
*Price does not include sales tax, shipping or handling. Price subject to change without notice. Discount cannot be combined with other offers. Expires 12/31/2013.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site