Florida Maritime Accident Lawyer
Marine Construction & Dredging
Seaman Falls, Employer Denies Medical Care because he is HIV+
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
In one of the more bizarre cases concerning the denial of maintenance and cure, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has increased a seaman's award against Weeks Marine and Atlantic Soundings after those companies refused to provide the seaman with medical care because he was HIV positive.
"Weeks and Atlantic.....argue that Everett's [the seaman] failure to disclose his status as HIV positive should bar any award." The Court found that the argument was so silly that "...we find that it would waste judicial resources to write a lengthy opinion." The court went on to find that "the [district] court erred in reducing Everett's cure award for his contributory negligence, since "a seaman's negligence does not negate a shipowner's duty to pay maintenance and cure.....Consequently, the district court's limitation of its cure award to $5,437.40 was erroneous; instead, Everett is entitled to cure award of $6,796.75, without reduction for his contributory negligence.
In my opinion the courts should have awarded Everett punitive damages.
The full opinion is at EVERETT v. ATLANTIC SOUNDING COMPANY, INC., No. 09-30622 (5th Cir. 2010)
Is Weeks Marine Behind Slow Response to Building a Sand Berm Against Gulf Oil Spill?
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
One of the first marine contractors to be hired to build a sand berm across the coast of Louisiana was a New Jersey company named Weeks Marine. Even before the oil spill, Weeks Marine was the second largest federal contractor in the State of Louisiana with over $599 million in dredging contracts in that state alone.
Now, people are complaining about the fact that foreign dredges will not be permitted to assist in the berm-building efforts and legitimate questions arise about whether it is Weeks Marine preventing them from participating so that they can reap more profit from the environmental loss.
Dutch marine contractor Van Oord and the Dutch research institute Deltares, submitted a plan to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) to create sand berms to keep oil from reaching the coastline. BP originally pledged $360 million for the plan. However, U.S. dredging companies, of which Weeks Marine is one of the largest, and which have less than one-fifth of the capacity of Dutch dredging firms -- objected to foreign companies' participation.
Garret Graves, the chairman of Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, wrote in an e-mail that state officials "have made it clear to our contractors from the beginning that we want to use American dredges to complete this sand berm as quickly as possible . . . Ultimately, any effort to expedite these berms will be fully considered, but we remain committed to our American companies."
While the report doesn't mention which dredging companies were arguing in favor of rejecting foreign offers of assistance, I am making an educated guess that Weeks Marine was one of them. They have a lot of political clout. Senators and Congressmen accept many political donations from Weeks' executives, and the Army Corps of Engineers continues to award it hundreds of millions of dollar in dredging contracts.
Who are some of the recipients? Senator Pete Visclosky, Democrat of Indiana, Senator David Vitter, Republican from Louisiana, Congressman Frank LoBiondo, Republican from New Jersey, Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey, and Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, Democrat from Texas. Were any of these Senators and Congressmen pressured to stop foreign dredges from building a berm that might have stopped the environmental damage which Louisiana is bound to suffer? Perhaps some enterprising reporter will look into it.
Weeks Marine Employee injures hand, Weeks denies medical care and Sues him
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
Weeks Marine has a history of making up pretexts for denying medical care to injured seamen, but this one seems to reach a new low, even for Weeks Marine.
On July 29, 2009, Jeroms Parker's hand got caught between a "soft line and a bitt" causing injury to his index finger and his middle finger. This is a fairly typical injury for a seaman, and a typical company would have provided Parker with medical care, as it is required to do by law, so that he could get better and return to work. What did Weeks Marine do? It denied him medical care because on May 22, 2009 a dryer had fallen on him. That's right, they wont pay to have his injured hand fixed because three months earlier a dryer had fallen on him while he was working for another company.
This may sound just silly, but these are the kind on things that Weeks Marine, and its wholly owned subsidiary do. It my opinion it is just plain dishonesty.
Why does the Army Corps of Engineers deal with companies which are dishonest toward their employees? I doubt that they have to. The Federal Acquisition Regulations require the ACOE to determine whether contracting with a particular company is in the public's interest. In my opinion, contracting with Weeks Marine is against the public's interest. Perhaps someday the Army Corps will feel the same way.
Weeks Marine Sued by its Employee in Texas, Files Suit Against Employee in Mississippi
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
Weeks Marine has engaged in another of its despicable litigation tactics by suing its employee in Mississippi after its employee had sued it's subsidiary in Texas.
My experience is that Weeks Marine vexatiously tries to make litigation as expensive as possible as a litigation tactic. Take the case of Atlantic Sounding v Oliver. Oliver had already filed a suit against Weeks Marine in Texas. An honest company, if it had a dispute with its employee, would have simply counterclaimed in the Texas suit so that all issues could be resolved in one case before one judge. Weeks Marine is not, in my opinion, an honest company.
They filed a suit in Mississippi which has the effect of making litigation doubly expensive. The employee will now need to hire two attorneys, one in Texas and one is Mississippi, and pay twice as much in legal fees to get his case resolved.
Despite these and other what I consider to be dishonest practices. the Army Corps of Engineers awards Weeks Marine hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars. The fat cats at Weeks Marine feed off the government, while keeping their employees hurt and in pain. Maybe someday it will stop.
ost companies abandoned these types of practices in the 1930s. However, Weeks Marine has brought the 1930s to the 2010s. Neither the labor unions, nor the Department of Labor, nor the Courts seem to have the guts to Weeks Marine. Its political contacts are just too powerful to overcome.
Weeks Marine Sues Another Employee Who Says He is Too Injured To Work
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
Patrick Oliver claims that he hurt is back while working aboard the dredge "Captain Frank." After he was hurt, he was taken to the hospital where X-Rays were performed, but no MRI or other diagnostic films which would show that he had an injury to his discs or other soft tissues that are frequently the cause of back pain.
Oliver says he was too hurt to work so what did Weeks Marine's wholly owned subsidiary Atlantic Soundings do? It sued him. That's right, it sued its employee for not returning to the dredge when he was too injured to work. Mind you, it didn't sue him because it had real evidence that he wasn't too hurt, like an MRI. It sued him with the flimsiest of evidence saying that he should have gone back to work, that his injury was probably preexisting, and that it wouldn't have hired him if they knew of his true condition.
My experience leads me to believe that Weeks Marine will now comb through his medical records in detail looking for an excuse not to provide medical care. The real motive behind the pretext is to keep Oliver in pain as long as possible. If Weeks Marine can keep him in pain, they can force him to settle his case for less than it is worth.
This is, in my opinion, a dishonest tactic, and one which deserves punishment. We will wait to see who wins the case, but based upon the pattern or practice which I have observed, Oliver is just another victim of Weeks Marine's despicable record in the treatment of its employees.
Despite its despicable record, Senators and Congressmen continue to accept political donations from Weeks' executives, and the Army Corps of Engineers continues to award it hundreds of millions of dollar in dredging contracts. If you know Pete Visclosky, Democrat of Indiana, Senator David Vitter, Republican from Louisiana, Congressman Frank LoBiondo, Republican from New Jersey, Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey, or Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, Democrat from Texas, tell them what Weeks Marine does to its employees. Ask them why they accept campaign contributions from a company which engages in such practices. If they don't give you a good reason, support their opponents.
Weeks Marine Up to Its old Dishonest Tricks
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
Weeks Marine has again sued one of its employees for getting hurt on the job.
Demond Williams, an employee of Weeks Marine's wholly owned subsidiary Atlantic Sounding, says he was injured on the job on February 23, 2010. He hired a lawyer and the lawyer sent Weeks Marine a letter demanding that it supply Williams with medical care. According to the letter, the medical care was ordered by Mr. William's doctor. So, what did Weeks Marine do? It sued its employee.
Understand, Weeks has no medical evidence, and its Complaint doesn't reflect that it has done any investigation. It has simply refused to provide treatment. This is standard procedure for Weeks, a company which, in , my opinion, is the most dishonest dredging company in the United States in the way it treats its employees. The reason they say that they are not going to provide medical care is because Williams didn't show up for work when he was injured.
We can't tell at this point who will win the case, but based upon my experience, the suit is more likely than not a litigation tactic designed to keep its employee hurt and in pain as long as possible so that it can gain an advantage in the settlement process.
This despicable practice has been used by Weeks in other cases. So, why does this company continue to get contracts from the Army Corps of Engineers? Because apparently the ACOE doesn't care how its contractors treat their employees.
Port Manatee Should Reject Bid from Weeks Marine
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
Port Manatee is seeking bids from dredging companies to dredge the port so that Berth 12 can be extended from 1,000 feet to 1,584 feet long. The purpose of the dredging is to allow the port to build a new container yard to attract more freight once the Panama Canal is widened in 2014.
The port only received 2 bids on the project. Great Lakes Dredging & Dock, based in Oak Brook, Illinois, bid US$17.2 million while Weeks Marine bid US$34 million. Both bids were rejected The fact that the Weeks' bid is twice the bid of Great Lakes seems to indicate that they aren't really interested in the job. However, Port Manatee should reject them as a contractor even if their next bid comes in lower.
In my opinion, Weeks Marine is a despicable and dishonest employer in the way it treats its employees who are injured. I didn't arrive at this opinion suddenly, and I can back it up with numerous case citations and factual material. If Port Manatee contracts with them, the Port will be indirectly supporting the egregious way in which Weeks, and its subsidiary Atlantic Soundings, withholds medical care from their injured workers. I hope that Port Manatee will take that into account when awarding the contract.
Kim Deaver, Army Corps of Engineers and Weeks Marine
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
If you are a current or former employee of Weeks Marine who has been denied medical care after being injured on the job, you have a right to tell people about it. As a matter of fact, you have a duty to do so. If you don't Weeks Marine will continue to keep its injured workers hurt, in poverty, and in pain without any good reason for doing so.
What you can do is this---write to the Army Corps of Engineers, which is the governmental entity which gives Weeks Marine many, if not most of its contracts. Tell the Army Corps that you were injured while working for Weeks Marine and what they did to you.
If they dumped you into the Medicaid system, tell the Army Corps of Engineers
If they refused to give you surgery which your doctor said was medically necessary, tell the Army Corps of Engineers.
If they cut off you maintenance based upon a string of made-up excuses, tell the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Army Corps of Engineers has a duty to act in the public interest, and if Weeks Marine is treating its injured employees badly, the Army Corps should cease giving them contracts.
Here is who you can write to:
Mr. Kim Denver
Director
National Contracting Organization
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Headquarters
441 G. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Email: hq-publicaffairs@usace.army.mil
Another Court Finds Weeks Marine Wrongfully Withheld Medical Care
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
As I have said many times, in my opinion Weeks Marine is the most despicable and disreputable company to whom the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awards contracts. Here is another in the long litany of cases where Weeks has denied medical care to an injured man, keeping him sick, poor, and in constant pain because he bucked the company.
These excerpts are taken from www.jonesactquestion.com
Joseph Collick v. Weeks Marine, Inc., et al.
Date Decided: October 28, 2009
Court: U.S.D.C. D. New Jersey
Judge: Judge Cooper
Citation: 2009 WL 3615025
Collick was a Weeks Marine employee who was injured when he fell 12-15 feet to the deck of the pier. As a result Collick injured his right ankle. When Collick asserted that he was a Jones Act seaman, Weeks cut off his medical care. "Collick also claimed that Weeks' failure to pay maintenance and cure has severely ruined his financial life and worsened his condition. Moreover, both parties disagree on the proper method of treating the ankle and Weeks has conditioned maintenance and cure payments upon Collick entering into a rehabilitation program asserted by Weeks."
The Court first examined the likelihood of Collick's success in showing he is a seaman entitled to maintenance and cure under general maritime law. This Court ultimately found because he was regularly and consistently assigned to work on a particular barge, the nature of the work included assisting in handling lines to move the crane barge several times per week, that Collick has shown a reasonable probability of success in showing that his connection to the barge was substantial in duration and nature.
Second, the court considered whether Collick was likely to show entitlement to maintenance and cure benefits. Weeks contended that Collick has reached maximum medical improvement, however, this Court found that this lacked merit because Collick's overall condition had worsened.
Third, this Court examined whether Collick has made a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury. Here, the Court found that because Collick has fallen into dire financial straits due to discontinuation of payment of benefits and his inability to work as a dockbuilder then Collick has shown irreparable injury if the Court did not enjoin Weeks from failing to pay maintenance and cure.
Fourth, this Court also found that Weeks failed to show substantial harm if they are required to pay maintenance and cure. Simply put, if the court eventually finds that Collick is a seaman, the maintenance and cure payments are substantially lower than those benefits being paid under the LHWCA.
Finally, this Court found, recognizing the strong public policy entitling seaman to maintenance and cure, supports a finding that paying Collick his maintenance and cure furthers a public interest.
Accordingly, this Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered Collick to submit a detailed declaration explaining his maintenance expenses and supporting documentation regarding his financial condition.
Judge Dismisses Racketeering Lawsuit Against Weeks Marine on a Technicality
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
A Louisiana judge threw out a lawsuit against Weeks Marine brought under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. The order of dismissal did not address the truthfulness of the allegations of the complaint but merely asserted that the Plaintiff had failed to allege that the racketeering activities described in the complaint had injured the Plaintiff's business.
RCIO "requires a plaintiff to demonstrate an injury to his "business or property" in order to establish standing to
sue. Since Vickers only alleged injury to his body, that was not enough to trigger the application of the RICO statute.
That a "racketeering influenced corrupt organization" could injure someone personally and not be subject to a cause of action under RICO is based upon a decision by the United States Supreme Court which says "the phrase "business or property" [as used in the RICO statute] also retains restrictive significance. It would, for example, exclude personal injuries suffered." Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 339 (U.S. 1979)
See Vickers v Weeks Marine, Case No. 2:09-cv- 06230 (E.D. La. 2009).
Lawsuit Alleges Weeks Marine Engages in Racketeering
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
A lawsuit filed in September of 2009 in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana alleges that Weeks Marine engages is corrupt activity "by using and investing income received from a pattern of racketeering, directly or indirectly, to establish a 'fraudulent legal enterprise.'"
The suit, named Vickers v Weeks Marine specifically asserts that Weeks Marine and another company, Atlantic Soundings, engaged in racketeering activities to avoid paying for medical care that those companies owed to their employees who were injured on the job. The racketeering activity had the effect of leaving those injured workers "crippled and in poverty, with no money to pay medical bills, and too crippled to work."
The lawsuit alleges that Vickers is not the only victim of these illicit activities. It says that Weeks Marine and Atlantic Soundings "have used these same unfair and unfounded legal actions against numerous injured employees for the purpose of denying, delaying, and reducing legally required maintenance and cure [medical care] benefits."
Weeks Marine has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
See Vickers v Weeks Marine, Case No. 2:09-cv- 06230 (E.D. La. 2009).
David Vitter and Weeks Marine, an unsavory connection
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
One of Senator David Vitter's major campaign contributors is Richard Weeks, the President of Weeks Marine. Weeks Marine is, according to OMB Watch, the second largest federal contractor in the State of Louisiana, with contracts totaling $$599,869,477.
I don't know Vitter but if I did I would advise him to take a look at the practices of Weeks Marine before he become too closely attached to that company. I would even recommend that he return all the campaign contributions. I think the company is morally reprehensible. Weeks Marine has been accused repeatedly of withholding medical care from its injured workers after they become injured on the job. Last year the Supreme Court said that punitive damages could be assessed against Weeks Marine if it was proven that it engaged in a pattern or practice of using false pretexts to deny medical care to its workers. This year a Texas appeals court upheld a $2.5 million award against Weeks Marine for unreasonably withholding medical care. This is just an unethical company.
Any Senator who opposes national health care and then lets his major contributors get off with leaving injured workers sick and in pain after they are injured on the job is bound to have his own character called into question.
Weeks Marine Charged $2.5 Million for Keeping Injured Employee Injured
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
Weeks Marine has again been socked by the courts for its " unreasonable failure to provide maintenance and cure" to an injured employee. What that means is that Weeks, as it has in other cases, denied its employee medical care after the employee was injured on the job. See Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Garza, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 2894 (Tex. App. San Antonio Apr. 21, 2010). The judgment in this case awarded a Weeks employee, Garza $ 1,121,000.00 in tort damages, $ 2,500,000.00 as compensation for failure to pay maintenance and cure, $ 15,000.00 in maintenance, $ 73,500.00 in attorney's fees, and $ 6,110.36 in experts' fees.
Garza's case is one in a long line of cases alleging and proving that Weeks Marine withholds medical care from its employees after they are injured based upon pretexts unsupported by the facts. Last year the United States Supreme Court said that Weeks Marine could be liable for punitive damages if it is proven that it uses such pretexts to keep its employees sick, hurt, and in pain. See Atlantic Soundings (Weeks Marine) v Townsend, 129 S. Ct. 2561; 174 L. Ed. 2d 382; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4732, 2009 AMC 1521 (U.S. 2009). The jury verdict in Garsa was entered before the Townsend case was decided. If it had been after, Weeks Marine could have been liable for punitive damages in addition to the $2.5 million awarded.
In my opinion, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is complicit in these despicable employment practices. The Federal Acquisition Regulations required companies which contract with the Corps to be of good moral character and to adhere to a Code of Ethics. Garza and numerous other cases demonstrate the Weeks Marine is not a company with good moral character. Apparently the Army Corps doesn't care if its contractors hurt, maim, and abuse their employees, and then dump them without medical care. Some of them them end up on Medicaid, thereby permitting Weeks Marine to shed its expenses off on the federal government, giving it an unfair advantage on other dredging companies. Despite this, the Army Corps continues to award them contract after contract. Maybe someone at the Army Corps will begin taking their job seriously, and stop funding and enabling Weeks Marine to abuse its employees the way it does.
Derelict Vessels: FWC Spends $250,000 to Remove Barge from St. Johns River
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
According to the FWC, currently there are about 12,000 derelict vessels in Florida.
The average cost to taxpayers to remove derelect vessels is about $7,000. However, the cost can go as high as $250,000, as recently happened with an abandoned barge in Jacksonville.
The abandoned barge was left in front of Queens Harbor off Atlantic Boulevard in Jacksonville. Apparently the owner had been tracked down by the FWC, criminal charges had been brought against him, and he fled the country.
The steel barge needed to be cut into pieces and hauled out piece by piece. It had sat in place so long that it could no longer be re-floated.
Kite Sailor hits Dunedin Causeway Power Lines
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
Christopher Bryan Kenny, 16, Bellair, Florida flew into powerlines while kite-surfing last week near the causeway over St. Joseph's Sound near Dunedin, Florida. He is reported to be in serious condition at St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa.
The accident happened about 4 p.m. on September 30 when the wind pulled Kenny into the power lines on the north side of the Dunedin Causeway. Witnesses saw an electric arc when Kenny hit the lines. Then he fell 20 to 30 feet to the ground.
Getting Rid of Abandoned and Derelict Boats in Florida Waters
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
Derelict boats are becoming a bigger problem in Florida. How do you deal with them? Here are some tips from the FWC:
Who is responsible for removing derelict vessels?
The owner of the vessel is responsible for removing it from public waters. If the owner refuses, he/she may face criminal charges and possible fines.
What if the owner cannot be identified or cannot remove the vessel from public waters?
If the owner cannot be identified, the FWC is authorized to remove any abandoned or derelict vessel when the vessel obstructs or threatens to obstruct navigation or in any way constitutes a danger to the environment. Also, any law enforcement agency may remove a vessel if it is deemed to be a hazard to public safety or is considered to be abandoned property. (See also Section 327.70(1) and Section 705.103 of the Florida Statutes.)
What is the FWC process for removing a derelict vessel?
Once an abandoned vessel has been located, the FWC must determine if the vessel is a recovered stolen boat, lost property, or a derelict vessel. If the reported vessel constitutes a hazard to navigation, then the nearest U.S. Coast Guard station is notified. If a pollution threat exists, the FWC ensures that the appropriate U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Emergency Response are notified.
The FWC makes a comprehensive and thorough effort to determine ownership of the reported derelict vessel. All efforts are taken to have the owner remove the vessel. The FWC mails a certified letter to the last known owner of an abandoned vessel and directs the owner to remove the vessel from public waters of the state within 30 days of receipt of the letter or provide proof of the legal transfer of the vessel's ownership. If the owner complies with the request, the matter shall be closed. If these efforts fail, the facts are reviewed to determine if criminal charges are warranted.
If the vessel meets the criteria in section 823.11, Florida Statutes, and all efforts have been expended to have the vessel removed from public waters by its owner, the FWC designates the vessel as a derelict vessel and marks accordingly with the letters "DV" and the incident summary number assigned by the regional field office. The marking of the vessel will be done in such a way that the vessel will be readily identified as a specific derelict vessel by a prudent mariner and/or a removal contractor.
Once the FWC has declared a vessel derelict and marked it as such, FWC notifies the appropriate local government of the location of the derelict vessel. If funding is available, FWC will also notify the local government about any grant opportunities and how to apply. Also, if the vessel became derelict as a result of a natural disaster event, the local government may apply for FEMA funding to assist with the removal costs.
Experienced Salt Water Aquarium Fish Diver Killed During Free Dive
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
Dynasty Marine Associates is a global supplier of live Caribbean ocean life, including tropical fish and sharks, which collects its salt water fish in deep dives, up to 300 feet deep off the Florida Keys. The dives are typically conducted with three man teams. Two divers go to 300 feet to collect the fish while the third diver hangs at 150 feet to conserve his air supply and to be prepared to rescue the other two, if there is a problem.
Heath Jens Laetari, was a 28 year old master diver who grew up in rural Kansas, but who developed a love of the ocean. Rugged and handsome, in high school he lettered in wrestling, football, and track. After high school he went on to study marine biology at Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas. He then transferred and completed work on his degree at Nova Southeastern University in Dania, Florida.
Last month, while others were diving he remained on the boat. While waiting for the other divers to return, he attempted a deep free dive, with no SCUBA tank or other breathing apparatus. The diver who was at 150 feet saw him turn around and disappear from sight. When the three working divers returned to the surface, Laetari was nowhere to be found. He is presumed to have blacked out while returning to the surface, and to have died. His body has not been recovered.
Note: It was reported earlier that Dynasty had taken its website down. This was apparently incorrect. See comments below.
Oil Spill gets M/Y Sea Maids banned from Brevard marina
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
Anthony Demas, 53, who is owner of a 36-foot boat named "Sea Maids" was kicked out of the Whitley Bay Marina along the Indian River Lagoon after he accidently spilled three gallons of used motor oil into the bilge of his boat, which he says the bilge pump pumped overboard. Demas confessed to authorities, and charges are pending. In addition to being kicked out of the marina, he could be required to pay three times the cost of the cleanup and a fine of up to $32,500.
"I was taking the used oil container out of the engine room and it spilled into the bilge and then the bilge pumped it (out)," he said. "I'm sorry it all happened. It was an accident." Demas also admitted to using an emulsifier to try to break up the oil.
Argument "borders on the flaky."
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
I always find it amusing when a judge speaks his or her mind. Judge Adams of the United States District Court in Jacksonville recently wrote plainly to a Jacksonville attorney about his position on whether State Court judges could hear admiralty law issues.
The attorney represented a marine construction company which had no LHWCA coverage. He removed a maritime workers' personal injury case alleging federal question jurisdiction. The basis for removal was a mention in the Plaintiff's complaint that a marine construction company which lacks LHWCA coverage is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity.
District Judge Henry Adams, rebuking the attorney said:
"Defendant's contention that there is "no mention of a state law claim [in the Complaint]" is obviously incorrect' and Defendant's statement that "it would be incomprehensible to have a substantial federal act ...[ interpreted] by a state court" borders on the flaky."
Apparently the attorney didn't know that Judge Adams was a state court judge for over a decade before ascending to the federal bench.
Needless to say, the motion to remand was granted.
Diamond Offshore to Install $45 million in New Mooring Systems
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
The increased number of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico has caused Diamond Offshore to decide to switch from an 8 point to a 12 point mooring system on its floating drill rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. The addition of four more anchors per rig is expected to cost $45 million and to be completed by midway through the 2006 hurricane season. All these new anchors should result in a temporary boost in marine employment in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dormitory Barge is Vessel: 5th Circuit Reverses Itself
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
The queston of what is a vessel is always important in marine construction cases since it is one of the criteria which separates "seamen", who are entitled to sue under the Jones Act, from "harbor workers" who are entitled to compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act.
Yesterday the 5th Circuit, which had previously decided that a dormitory barge was not a "vessel" for Jones Act purposes, reversed itself.
Continue reading "Dormitory Barge is Vessel: 5th Circuit Reverses Itself"
Lighting dock can Prevent Lawsuit
Category: Marine Construction & Dredging
In Green Cove Springs last month, a power boat operating after dark on a Sunday night ran into an unlit dock, killing one occupant and seriously injuring another. The Army Corps of Engineers was not able to tell me whether the dock lighting violated any regulations, but regardless of whether there is statute or regulation, a reasonably prudent dock owner should light a dock which extends into a waterway. If you own a dock, burning a light to illuminate it at night is a small step you can take to make the waterways safer for boaters.