ALJ KENNINGTON (COVINGTON) FINDS THAT 'BREAKING DOWN TRAILERS' NEAR THE WATERFRONT LACKS SUFFICIENT MARITIME NEXUS TO BESTOW STATUS

DAVID MARTIN vs. AMERI-FORCE 

Contention of the Parties  

Claimant contends that the situs requirement is met due to the fact that at the time of his injury,  Claimant  was  in  the  process  of  breaking  down  trailers  used  to  house  personnel  and equipment that was part of the BP oil spill cleanup operation.  Claimant asserts that the site of his injury, while not over navigable water, was within a few hundred yards of the dock/muster area for the cleanup operations.  Claimant also argues that he has met the status requirement because he spent up to eight hours each day assisting and instructing the responders with the loading and unloading operations.  Specifically, that Claimant held daily safety meetings and both loaded and unloaded oil boom from the chartered vessels. 

Employer/Carrier contend that Claimant lacks a maritime status and that there is no nexus between  breaking  down  the  trailers  and  maritime  employment.    Employer/Carrier  argue  that Claimantfs work was far removed from traditional maritime  activities.    While  Claimant  had duties coordinating cleanup workers, at the time of Claimantfs injury this work had ended and his exclusive duties at the time were breaking down the trailers and transporting them to Mobile, AL.  Additionally, Employer/Carrier asserts that Claimantfs duties lacked the functional nexus to maritime employment and that his activities fail the status test.  Should the undersigned find that Claimant   has   met   the   jurisdictional   requirements   of   the   Act,   Employer/Carrier   argue   that Claimant is not entitled to ongoing medical benefits because there is no plan for future treatment of Claimants alleged condition.

--

ALJ Conclusion

As Claimant was not employed in any of the occupations enumerated in the statute, his work must 

have been integral or essential to the loading, unloading, building, or repairing of a vessel   to   be  

 covered   under   the   LHWCA.      Claimant   here   argues   that   his   work   included coordinating  

and supplying  the oil cleanup workers.   These duties have nothing to  do with  the loading,  

unloading,   building,   or   repairing   of   a   vessel.      Claimantfs  connection  to  activities covered 

under the Act is not only indirect but so far removed from what can be considered to be maritime 

employment in order to have status under the Act.