An offshore energy company successfully defended itself against claims by a former employee that a drilling rig off the coast of Louisiana, where she worked as a galley hand, was unseaworthy; that the company was, therefore, negligent; and that negligence was a cause of an injury she suffered.
A district court entered a summary judgment in favor of the company; that ruling was affirmed by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The case centers on two legal arguments by the plaintiff—first, that OSHA regulations covering vessels were not preempted by vessel regulations promulgated by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG); and second, that the plaintiff’s claims for maintenance and cure benefits were valid even though she had not informed the company of preexisting medical conditions.
Raised Doorsill
The plaintiff, Denetra Thomas, claimed that in 2013, she suffered back and hip injuries when her foot struck a raised doorsill between the stateroom and the connected bathroom. Thomas’s employer, Hercules Offshore Services, began paying her maintenance and cure benefits from the date of her injury. In total, Hercules’s maintenance payments to Thomas amounted to $44,490, and payments for medical treatment of injuries came to about $13,000.
In 2015, Thomas filed a complaint in federal district court in the Middle District of Louisiana, alleging negligence by Hercules, unseaworthiness of the drilling rig under general maritime law, and a claim for maintenance and cure benefits.
Preemption
Under federal law, a vessel may be subject to either USCG or OSHA regulations. If a vessel is any of 15 types of vessels, it is considered inspected and, therefore, under USCG jurisdiction. Vessels not included in the list of 15 inspected vessels are classified as uninspected. According to Thomas, offshore drilling rigs are not a type of vessel in the list and are, therefore, uninspected and subject to OSHA regulations.
Hercules argued that the U.S. Supreme Court found that the USCG has the authority to regulate working conditions on both inspected and uninspected vessels (Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 2002). The 5th Circuit panel also noted that the USCG issues regulations governing design and equipment on certain uninspected vessels, including drilling rigs; those regulations also cover wash spaces, toilet spaces, and shower spaces. These two factors weighed preemption in favor of OSHA’s regulations.
“We are persuaded that the promulgation of these regulations constitutes an exercise of the Coast Guard’s authority sufficient to preempt OSHA’s regulations,” stated the panel. “Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that the Coast Guard regulations preempted OSHA’s regulations.”
Negligence
The panel pointed out that a claim of negligence based on unseaworthiness of the vessel can be proven only with evidence that the unseaworthy condition was the probable cause of the injury. According to the district court, Thomas could point to no violation of a USCG regulation; no evidence that there had been other incidents of tripping over the raised doorsill; and no expert testimony that the raised doorsill was an unsafe condition. The panel agreed.
Furthermore, Hercules contended that Thomas made misrepresentations on her application for employment because she did not give a complete history of injuries. Specifically, during her deposition, Thomas revealed that in 2008 and 2009, she had been involved in two car accidents and suffered back, shoulder, and neck injuries. While Thomas had not revealed these injuries on the application, she asserted that this information was immaterial to the case because she passed a physical that was a condition of employment and was deemed able to work without restriction.
The panel noted that it had encountered this same argument in the past and rejected it.
“Likewise, in the case at bar, the fact that Thomas could perform the physical tasks during the evaluation is ‘irrelevant’ because Hercules based its hiring decision at least in part upon whether Thomas had previous back and neck injuries,” said the panel.
Thomas also argued that there was no causal connection between her injuries from the car accidents and her injury on the drilling rig. The court disagreed, stating that even if the injuries were not identical, a causal connection was established because the injuries were in the same locations, the lower back and spine.
The panel’s opinion in Denetra Thomas v. Hercules Offshore Services is here.