QCR Summer: 2020 Sanchez v Smart Fabricators LLC
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals withdraws its March 11, 2020 decision, concluding instead that injured welder was a Jones Act seaman
Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators, LLC – The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Analyzes Jones Act Seaman Status.
In the recent decision of Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas LLC, (5th Cir. August 14, 2020) the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the contours of Jones Act seaman status in reviewing a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court had held that a welder who was injured when he tripped over a pipe on the deck of a jacked-up offshore drilling rig was not a Jones Act seaman based on its application of the Supreme Court’s two-pronged seaman status test. The Fifth Circuit disagreed with the lower court and reversed its decision based on earlier decisions examining seaman status.1
The employee, Sanchez, filed a negligence lawsuit against his employer in state court under the Jones Act. His employer then sought to have the case removed to federal court based on its position that Sanchez did not meet the requirements for seaman status set forth by the Supreme Court. Typically Jones Act claims brought in state court are not subject to removal to federal court if the injured employee is deemed to be a seaman. Sanchez then filed a motion to remand the case to state court, however the district court agreed with his employer’s position that Sanchez did not meet seaman status and refused to remand the case. The district court also later granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on the same basis.
The Key Determination
The key determination in the Supreme Court’s seaman status test is whether the employee “faces regular exposure to the perils of the sea.” This determination is based on a two-pronged test: 1) whether the employee’s duties “contribute[d] to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission”; and 2) whether the employee had a connection to a vessel or group of vessels that was “substantial in terms of both its nature and duration.” The second prong of the test focuses on “whether the employee’s duties take him to sea.”
The Fifth Circuit agreed with district court that Sanchez met the first prong of the test as his duties as a welder contributed to the mission of the drilling rig. The court then focused on the second prong of the test where the district court found that Sanchez’ work on board the jack-up rigs did not expose him to the perils of the sea. In making its finding, the district court distinguished an earlier Fifth Circuit decision (Naquin v. Elevating Boats, LLC, 744 F.3d 927 (5th Cir. 2014)). In Naquin, the injured employee was a vessel repair supervisor who spent approximately 70% of his time on lift boats which were moored, docked or jacked up. His duties included operating the vessel’s crane and jack up legs. Based on these facts, the district court in Naquin found the plaintiff to be a Jones Act seaman and awarded him $2 million. On appeal, Naquin’s employer argued he did not qualify for seaman status because he rarely spent the night on the vessel and while he was on board, the vessel was usually docked and almost never in open sea. The Fifth Circuit rejected these arguments, finding that performing his duties near shore still exposed the plaintiff to the “perils of a maritime work environment.”
The district court in Sanchez found Naquin distinguishable because the rigs on which Sanchez was working were jacked up from the sea floor on 65 of the 67 days he worked on board, “with the body of the rig out of the water and not subject to waves, tides, or other water movement.” Also, the lower court found it significant that the only time Sanchez was on board the rig while it was on open seas was for four days while it was under tow and that during this time he was treated like a passenger rather than a crew member. Based on these findings, the district court held that Sanchez was not a Jones Act Seaman.
In reviewing the district court’s decision, the Fifth Circuit in Sanchez examined Naquin as well as another of its earlier decisions (In re Endeavor Marine). In Endeavor Marine a crane operator worked on a moored derrick barge on the Mississippi River loading and unloading cargo and maintaining the crane. He was rarely required to board a moving vessel and never traveled beyond the immediate dock area. Despite these facts, the Fifth Circuit in Endeavor Marine found that being "on the brown waters of the Mississippi River” exposed the crane operator to the perils of the sea. Accordingly, the court held that the crane operator had a connection to the vessel that was substantial in nature and, thus, he was a Jones Act seaman.
The Fifth Circuit in Sanchez followed its precedent in Naquin and Endeavor Marine and reversed the district court’s decision that Sanchez was not a Jones Act seaman, finding that the nature of Sanchez's employment could not be distinguished from those of the employees’ in these prior decisions. The court found that Naquin and Endeavor Marine made clear that “while near-shore workers may face fewer risks, they still remain exposed to the perils of a maritime work environment" and therefore held that Sanchez had a substantial connection both in nature and duration to the vessels on which he worked.
The Sanchez decision demonstrates that courts will closely scrutinize the facts of Jones Act claims on a case-by-case basis to determine seaman status and there is no bright line rule for this determination.
1The Fifth Circuit had previously issued a decision holding that Sanchez was not a Jones Act seaman, however that decision was withdrawn.
You may also be interested in:
QCR Summer 2021: Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, L.L.C. (5th Cir. May 11, 2021) (en banc)
The Court took the opportunity to formally overturn a previous case, Naquin v. Elevating Boats L.L.C., 744 F.3d 927 (5th Cir. 2014) and its progeny, for its misinterpretation of the seaman status test, citing the UK Club’s Taylor Coley’s published academic work criticizing same.
Kristin Poling, Claims Executive, looks at the Eastern District of Louisiana's decision concerning an insurer's right to recoup maintenance and cure payments.
US Juries Get to Determine Reasonable Medical Expenses in Maritime Cases Based on Billed Amounts and Actual Expenses Paid - Higgs v. Costa Crociere (11th Cir. 2020)
This case involved a cruise ship passenger who sued the a vessel owner for claimed injuries suffered when she alleged to have tripped over a cleaning bucket that had been left near a buffet line, causing her to break her arm.
A Direct Order Can Cost in Court
Can a crewmember who sustains an injury while following the orders of a supervisor be held responsible for their own negligence in carrying out those orders? Rosa Ostrom, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, and Jennifer Porter, the UK P&I Club, wade through the various jurisdictional takes on the Direct Order doctrine.