John F. Alford v. Am. Bridge Div., United States Steel Corp., 655 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
John F. Alford v. Am. Bridge Div., United States Steel Corp., 655 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: New Orleans Depot Services, Inc. v. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs (ca5, 2013-04-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) New Orleans Depot Services, Inc. v. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs
5th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
Bridge Div. U.S. Steel Corp., 642 F.2d 807, 814 (5th Cir. 1981), vacated in part on reh’g, 655 F.2d 86 . 9 Case: 11-60057 Document: 00512223616 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/29/2013 No. 11-60057 Id. at 141.14 In Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. DOWCP, 540 F.2d 629 (3d Cir. 1976), an employee was using a truck to move cargo that had been unloaded from a vessel to a building, so it could be further transported to a more permanent location.
discussed Cited "see" In The Matter Of The Claim For Compensation Under The Longshore And Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Neil Abbott, Jr.
5th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alford v. American Bridge Div., U.S. Steel Corp., 642 F.2d 807, 809 (5th Cir.), modified, 655 F.2d 86 , 668 F.2d 791 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 927 , 102 S.Ct. 1292 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982).
discussed Cited "see" Abbott v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n
5th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alford v. American Bridge Div., U.S. Steel Corp., 642 F.2d 807, 809 (5th Cir.), modified, 655 F.2d 86 , 668 F.2d 791 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 927 , 102 S.Ct. 1292 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982).
discussed Cited "see" Oberlee Jenkins v. McDermott Inc. And Tad Technical Services, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alford v. American Bridge Division, United States Steel Corporation, 642 F.2d 807, 813 (5th Cir.1981), modified in part, 655 F.2d 86 , modified in another part, 668 F.2d 791 , cert. denied, 455 U.S. 927 , 102 S.Ct. 1292 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pool Company v. Otis L Cooper
5th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Alford v. American Bridge Div., United States Steel Corp., 642 F.2d 807 , 809 n. 2 (1981), vacated in part on other grounds on reh’g, 655 F.2d 86 (5th Cir.1981); Boudreaux, 680 F.2d at 1046 n. 23.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Feurtado v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp.
La. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Alford v. American Bridge Div., United States Steel Corp., 642 F.2d 807, 812-13 (5th Cir.), modified in part 655 F.2d 86 (1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 927 , 102 S.Ct. 1292 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982); Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp.v.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Steven L. Easley v. Southern Shipbuilding Corporation
5th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Alford v. American Bridge Div., United States Steel Corp., 642 F.2d 807, 812-13 (5th Cir.), modified in part 655 F.2d 86 (1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 927 , 102 S.Ct. 1292 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982); Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Morgan, 551 F.2d 61, 62 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 434 U.S. 966 , 98 S.Ct. 508 , 54 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Perkins v. Marine Terminals Corp.
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Alford v. American Bridge Division, United States Steel Corp., 642 F.2d 807, 813-16 (5th Cir. 1981) (amended on other grounds, 655 F.2d 86 ), cert. denied --- U.S. ---, 102 S.Ct. 1292 , 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982); Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co. v. Herron, 568 F.2d 137 (9th Cir. 1978) (locker area located 2600 feet from shore and 2050 feet outside the entrance gate to port facility held to be a covered situs).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Earl Perkins v. Marine Terminals Corporation, and Pacific Employers Insurance Co., Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Marine Terminals Corporation, and Pacific Employers Insurance Co.
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Alford v. American Bridge Division, United States Steel Corp., 642 F.2d 807, 813-16 (5th Cir. 1981) (amended on other grounds, 655 F.2d 86 ), cert. applied for, 50 U.S.L.W. 3559 (1982); Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co. v. Herron, 568 F.2d 137 (9th Cir. 1978) (locker area located 2600 feet from shore and 2050 feet outside the entrance gate to port facility held to be a covered situs).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John F. Alford, Anthony R. Buller, Hector Cantu and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
v.
American Bridge Division, United States Steel Corporation
78-1633.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 4, 1981.
655 F.2d 86
Published

655 F.2d 86

John F. ALFORD, Anthony R. Buller, Hector Cantu and
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation
Programs, United States Department of
Labor, Petitioners,
v.
AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

Nos. 78-1901, 78-1633, 78-1607, 78-1601, 78-1598 and 78-1544.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 4, 1981.

Stephenson, Thompson & Dies, Martin W. Dies, Orange, Tex., Louis Bien, Galveston, Tex., Schechter & Shelton, Michael Shelton, Houston, Tex., Stanley K. George, Port Arthur, Tex., Carin A. Clauss, Sol. of Labor, Laurie M. Streeter, Associate Sol., Mary A. Sheehan, Joshua T. Gillelan and Gilbert T. Renaut, U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., for petitioners.

Kyle Wheelus, Jr., Beaumont, Tex., for respondent.

Petitions for Review of Orders of the Benefits Review Board.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before BROWN, GEWIN[*] and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~86]1

In our original decision, Alford v. American Bridge Division, U. S. Steel Corp., 642 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1981), we affirmed the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and Benefits Review Board's (BRB) denial of coverage under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) to Hector Cantu for injuries which he sustained while he was constructing a seventy-five pound black diamond navigational signal which was to be attached to an American Bridge barge loaded with vessel modules. A careful review of the Petition for Rehearing En Banc which attacks this denial, convinces us that we made an error with respect to that portion of the decision. In all other respects our decision remains unaffected.

2

We originally held that Cantu did not qualify as a covered "employee" under the Act because the construction of the black diamond did not "qualif(y) as traditional maritime activity or reac(h) the level of involvement in the shipbuilding process described as fundamental, integral or essential." Alford, 642 F.2d at 813. Rather, the marker "was merely to be used in maritime commerce as a navigational traffic sign and we find this use too tenuous a connection to shipbuilding or ship repairing as required under the LHWCA." Id.

3

A reconsideration of the principles of "maritime employment status" developed in prior decisions, persuades us that Cantu is entitled to coverage. Recently, Trotti & Thompson v. Crawford, 631 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1980), and many other past decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court have held that making and maintaining facilities and items of equipment for loading and unloading vessels[1] and for building them[2] are covered operations. Trotti involved a land-based carpenter who was injured while constructing a pier a facility essential to maritime commerce. The Court there reasoned that:

4

Although we minimize their importance, both (dry docks and piers) are aids to maritime commerce and are used in support of navigation even though the analogy to traditional aids to navigation is a little far-fetched.

5

Trotti, 631 F.2d at 1219 (emphasis added).

6

Even more recently, we have canvassed the many cases in Hullinghorst Industries v. Carroll, 650 F.2d 750, 751 (5th Cir.). Since the black diamond navigational signal was essential for a tow exceeding 600 feet in length and was being constructed for installation on an American Bridge Barge to be used in transporting ship modules to the shipyard in the East, the activity was sufficiently related to maritime commerce as to be maritime employment.

7

We now find that the analogy between a black diamond navigational signal, which is required by the U.S. Coast Guard as a daytime indicator on barges towing 600 feet or more, and traditional "aid to navigation" is not so "tenuous" as to deny Cantu LHWCA benefits.

8

In addition we find Cantu within the perimeters of "employee status" based on the principles announced by the Supreme Court in P.C. Pfeiffer Co., Inc. v. Ford, 444 U.S. 69, 100 S.Ct. 328, 62 L.Ed.2d 225 (1979), which emphasizes that in defining "employee status" the crucial factor is the nature of the activities which a worker may be assigned." Pfeiffer, 444 U.S. at 82, 100 S.Ct. at 337. (Emphasis added). See also Howard v. Rebel Well Service, 632 F.2d 1348, 1350 (5th Cir. 1980) ("Caputo defines status in terms of workers who spend 'at least some of their time' in ship repair"; claimant "was a member of a crew of workers who regularly performed some portion of the traditionally maritime activity of ship repair, thus he was constantly eligible for assignment to that task")[3]; Thibodaux v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 580 F.2d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909, 99 S.Ct. 2820, 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979).

9

Finding that Cantu falls within the foregoing principles delineating "employee status" under the LHWCA, we vacate that portion of the decision which originally denied his benefits.

[*~87]10

MODIFIED IN PART.

*

Due to his death on May 15, 1981, Judge Gewin did not participate in this decision. The case is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d)

1

The following cases exemplify the various types of recovery allowed. Texports Stevedore Co. v. Winchester, 554 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1977), reaff'd en banc, 632 F.2d 504 (1980), (stevedoring gear); Odom Construction Co. v. United States Department of Labor, 622 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 1482, 67 L.Ed.2d 614 (1981) (mooring blocks used for barges awaiting stevedoring services at nearby wharf)

2

Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co. v. Kininess, 554 F.2d 176 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 903, 98 S.Ct. 299, 54 L.Ed.2d 190 (1977) (maintaining parts of shipyard crane, not yet assembled but stored and intended for future use in building vessels); Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Morgan, 551 F.2d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1977) (injured while cleaning a piece of steel to prepare it for fabrication into a shipbuilding component)

3

In Howard, the claimant was employed as a sandblaster and painter at a yard which performed minor repairs on navigable floating barges. Claimant testified that he "mostly" worked on equipment removed from barge rigs and brought to the yard. Although his superior at the yard testified that equipment from the barge rigs comprised only about ten percent of work assigned to the sandblasting crew, the Court found claimant a covered employee under the Act