One such employer is tanker company OSG. The company is reportedly trying to get employees to give up their rights to a Jones Act claim, or a claim of unseaworthiness in exchange for what they call a Salary Continuation Plan. Under the Salary Continuation Plan, OSG agrees to pay a Jones act seamen 50% of his basic wages for two months, and all union benefits. In return, the Seaman is expected to agree not to have any surgery after the injury, unless the company gets a second opinion. If the two medical opinions clash, then the seaman would be required to get a third opinion.

Moreover, if the employee recovered from his injuries and became fit for duty within the two-month period, he would receive no compensation.

If he was not fit for duty within two months, the company would offer one of two options.

• The company would either continue paying him 50% of the wages until he recovered fully and reported for duty again, and the worker would be expected to waive off his rights to a Jones Act claim.
• The company would stop paying him compensation, and he would retain his right to sue under the Jones Act.

It’s important for workers to understand that waiving off their Jones Act rights can severely impact their ability to claim damages in the event of a serious injury caused by their employer’s negligence.

According to the lawsuit, the injury occurred on July 23, 2008, when the seaman was performing heavy labor. He sustained injuries to his back and other parts of his body. According to the seaman, he was performing the tasks without the help that he needed. The lawsuit further claims that  the employer was aware of the injury risks from the seaman performing extremely strenuous tasks on his own, but allowed him to go ahead and work anyway.

To any non-maritime worker, a back injury may not seem like a major problem. All of us have suffered back pain at some point in our lives. However, for a maritime worker who performs strenuous physical labor as part of his daily activities, a back injury can spell the end of his career.

Often, a back injury is not a single injury. These may be combined with injuries to the neck and shoulder. Besides, back injuries may not always be that easy to prove. In fact, employers often try to show that the injury occurred because of a pre-existing back injury or spine condition. Back injuries can also often lead to other serious medical conditions, like degenerative spine disease. These injuries can be debilitating, and can severely impact the seaman’s ability to return to his former job, or to any kind of employment at all.

Maritime lawyer Brian Beckcom is a Board-Certified Trial Lawyer whose primary focus is the representation of Jones Act seamen, including tankermen,  galley hands, deckhands, cruise line crews, fishing vessel crew members, offshore workers and other maritime workers in accidents in Texas, across the country and international waters.

In June of 2005, seaman Clarence Smith was woken up from his sleep by two crewmembers, who then proceeded to drag him out, and beat him up. He suffered a head injury, several lacerations, a retinal tear, hemorrhage in the left eye, and multiple abrasions. He also suffered several broken teeth, a temporomandibular joint injury, as well as shoulder and lower back injuries. As a result of the incident, Smith developed post-dramatic stress disorder, for which he had to undergo psychological counseling.

The assault occurred on a barge, and Smith filed a petition against the two crewmembers who attacked him, as well as Weeks Marine, the owner of the barge. Smith then amended his claim to include his employer, Atlantic Sounding Company Incorporated. His claim alleged negligence under the Jones Act, and unseaworthiness of the vessel.

A trial court granted him a partial summary judgment on the issue of the barge owner’s failure to maintain seaworthy conditions on the vessel. The trial court also denied the motions for summary judgment filed by both Weeks Marine and Atlantic Sounding. Weeks appealed this decision, and an appeals court in Louisiana has now also affirmed the trial court’s decision.

A vessel owner’s duty to maintain safe conditions on a vessel includes the hiring of competent crewmembers. A vessel owner cannot get away with the argument that he had no awareness of his crewmembers’ proclivity to violence, or history of assaults and battery. Employers are required to conduct a background check before hiring a worker. A vessel owner may be held liable for failing to provide a seaworthy vessel even if he couldn’t have possibly expected or anticipated an attack.

Maritime lawyer Brian Beckcom is a Board-Certified Trial Lawyer whose primary focus is the representation of Jones Act seamen, including tankermen, galley hands, deckhands, cruise line crews, fishing vessel crew members, offshore workers and other maritime workers in accidents in Texas, across the country and in international waters.

One of the more defining points in the evolution of the Jones Act came when the US Supreme Court held that a seaman could be considered  a Jones Act seaman if

He contributed significantly to the mission of the vessel

and

He had a substantial relationship with the vessel both in terms of nature and duration.

Latsis was working as a superintendent engineer on the vessel, SS Galileo owned by Chandris. He suffered an eye injury, and when the condition went untreated by his doctor, lost vision in one eye. Afterwards, he sailed to Germany with the vessel, and stayed with the vessel while it dry docked.

Soon after, he filed a Jones Act claim against Chandris. The District Court instructed the jury that the period when the vessel remained in dry dock could not be considered, because the vessel was not technically in navigation at the time. Based on that, Latsis lost his claim. However, the Supreme Court held that whether the vessel was in dry dock at the time of the injury, did no matter as much as the substantial connection Latsis had with the SS Galileo.

The ruling essentially held that the situation existing at the time of the injury alone could not be considered while determining a worker’s Jones Act seaman status. The ruling held that the overall nature of the employment was to be considered, to determine status under the Jones Act.

Obviously, this dramatically increased the scope of claims that can be filed under the Jones Act.

Maritime lawyer Brian Beckom is a Board-Certified Trial Lawyer whose primary focus is the representation of injured Jones Act seamen, tankermen,  galley hands, deckhands, drillers, offshore workers, oil rig workers and other maritime workers in accidents in Texas, around the country and in international waters.

Coast Guard helicopters and crews are calling off their search for two crew members who reportedly fell off a container ship off the coast of Alaska.

The two men were working on the Liberian-flagged Hanjin Pretoria. The vessel was on its way from Long Beach to Asia. The crewmembers were working on the deck when they both fell overboard. The vessel’s master informed the Coast Guard immediately, setting off search and rescue operations. The fall occurred about 850 miles south of Kodiak Island.

There’s no information on the nationalities of the two crewmembers here. One is believed to have been 28 years old and the other is 42 years old.

My deepest sympathies are with the families of these two workers, and I will keep them in my prayers. That such fall accidents continue to occur at all with the kind of maritime advancements we have made, continues to be a source of frustration for maritime lawyers. There a number of factors that could have gone wrong here including

• Lack of training
• Lack of supervision
• Delays in informing the Coast Guard

This fall accident occurred just a few weeks after another crewmember fell off a vessel, this time, a cruise liner. The 24-year-old man fell from the cruise ship, Pacific Venus. His disappearance was only noticed when he failed to show up at his post.

Maritime lawyer Brian Beckcom is a Board-Certified Trial Lawyer whose primary focus is the representation of injured Jones Act seamen, tankermen, galley hands, deckhands, drillers, offshore workers, oil rig workers and other maritime workers in accidents in Texas, around the country and in international waters.

This is the first study that has been commissioned to look into the economic impact of US-flagged Jones act vessels that are owned, crewed and built in the US. The study titled “The Economic Impact of the Shipbuilders and Vessel Operator Servicing the Offshore Exploration, Development and Production Industry on the US Economy” confirms what maritime attorneys have always known – that that these vessels contribute significantly not just to coastal economies, but also to the entire national economy.

According to the study:

• The vessels that support American energy drilling initiatives, as well as the shipyards that manufacture those vessels, generate about 100,000 jobs and account for approximately $18 billion worth of spending in the country.
• These employers pay out approximately $4.6 million in wages.
• Economic activity in the segment contributes to about $18.1 billion in new sales that benefit businesses around the country.
• The industry generates about $4.6 million in earnings every year.
• This segment contributes to about 103,160 jobs. This number includes not just direct employees, but also the additional jobs that are created to support these maritime jobs.
• The average annual earnings of workers in the segment are approximately $43,992.
• The federal government collected about $1.4 billion in direct and indirect taxes for the segment in 2008.
• State governments received about $770 million in direct and indirect taxes in 2008 from the segment.

Maritime lawyer Brian Beckcom is a Board-Certified Trial Lawyer whose primary focus is the representation of injured Jones Act seamen, tankermen, galley hands, deckhands, drillers, offshore workers, oil rig workers and other maritime workers in accidents in Texas around the country and in international waters.

A Filipino seaman has been hospitalized after he sustained serious injuries in a fall accident on a cargo vessel off Alaska.  The seaman apparently fell 16-feet in the cargo hold, and broke his arms. He was airlifted by the Coast Guard, and was taken to a hospital in Dutch Harbor.

Fall accidents on a vessel are extremely common. These can leave a seaman with fractures, amputated limbs and broken arms.  Head injuries are common if the head receives the full impact of the fall.  Damage to the spinal cord is also often a result of such accidents. At the very least, there may be concussions that may require the seaman to take time off work for a few days.

Cargo Hold Accidents

In case of a broken arm, the seaman could be looking at weeks off from work. Depending on the kind of fractures that occurred, a seaman will not be able to return to work for several days.   Many times, accidents in cargo holds occur because a seaman perceives that it is a safe environment, when it is not.   Cargo holds are typically stacked with hundreds and thousands of boxes, cartons, bags or other containers. These can also constitute a dangerous environment to crew members.

As a maritime attorney who frequently represents foreign seamen, including Filipinos, I know that the stress of a maritime injury can be compounded for a foreign national. Many times, these seamen are not comfortable communicating in English.  Most of them have left behind families and loved ones thousands of miles away, in order to make a living on the seas. Navigating the murky world of maritime insurers and employers post an injury, can be tough for an American seaman, and harder for a foreign seaman who finds himself alone and utterly confused. These seamen must also know that they may be eligible for Jones Act benefits, depending on the nature and duration of employment, and the status of the vessel.

The guidelines are called Preliminary Guidelines: Post Piracy Care for Seafarers and have been developed by the Seaman’s Church Institute. The SCI has compiled the guidelines using available physiological health research, and by discussing these issues with ship owners, government representatives and other maritime industry representatives. The guidelines were developed as part of the first ever Post Piracy Trauma Assessment and Treatment Study. The study includes identifying the unique kinds of stresses that pirates in hostage situations go through, as well as evaluating coping strategies for seamen and for their families, clinical assessment of seamen, post piracy assessment of families who suffer silently during the traumatic ordeal, and the designing of mental health treatment programs to help the seaman cope over the long term.

The guidelines deal with every stage of the seaman’s experience, right from the time the vessel is taken over by pirates to the time he is able to return back to work after his ordeal. There is plenty of information on helping family members of the seaman deal with their trauma. There are also guidelines to help a seaman and his family identify the symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder that are so common after these experiences. The document offers guidelines to maritime employers for helping their workers and families through a nightmare with minimal physical and psychological damage. As a maritime lawyer, I would encourage shipping companies to read the document and adopt these guidelines to help their workers cope with life after an attack.

In another interesting decision last year which unfortunately continues to maintain confusion on the matter, a Bulgarian seaman had his contract claim rejected.

First, a little context. In 1996, a seaman sustained injuries (Kossick v United Fruit Co.) during work, and was promised orally by his employer that if he received treatment at a public hospital instead of a private clinic, then he (the employer) would be responsible if there were any consequences of inadequate of improper care.  As to be expected, the inadequate care exacerbated the seaman’s’ condition.   When the time came for the seaman to take action, the court had to decide if such a promise was within the admiralty jurisdiction.  The court held that since the contract was maritime in nature, it was related to maritime jurisdiction.

In a similar case last year, a Bulgarian seaman (Slavchev v Royal Caribbean Cruises Limited) suffered a medical condition that rendered him unable to work. He went back home to Bulgaria, and continued to receive maintenance and cure payments. When he reached the state of maximum medical improvement, the payments stopped but Slavchev was still 60 percent disabled. Slavchev alleged that an employee at Royal Caribbean promised him orally that the company would send him disability payments.  Slavchev asserted admiralty jurisdiction insisting that his contact claim was closely connected to the maintenance and cure obligations of Royal Caribbean Cruise.

However, the fourth circuit court held that his claim did not come under admiralty jurisdiction because the alleged contract was made while he was a land-based employee in Bulgaria.  When the contract was made, Slavchev had ceased to be a maritime employee for approximately 5 months. The court ruled that the contract was made on land, and therefore had nothing to do with Royal Caribbean’s maintenance and cure obligations.

There’s much difference between the two cases, but I found it odd that the fourth circuit did not even mention or draw reference to Kossick vs. United Fruit Company while making the decision.

Maritime lawyer Brian Beckcom is a Board Certified trial lawyer, whose primary focus is the representation of injured Jones Act seamen, tankermen, galleyhands, deckhands, drillers, oilrig workers, offshore workers and other maritime workers in accidents in Texas, around the country and in international waters.

Part of being a maritime lawyer is following up closely on the several judicial rulings and court decisions that shape maritime and admiralty law.  This month and through the next, I will be looking a little closer at important decisions and rulings over the past year, that impact admiralty and maritime law cases.

The status of self employed fishermen continues to be a matter of disagreement, and the Supreme Court appears to be in no hurry to clear all the confusion around this important issue.  The Supreme Court has in the past defined nonseafarers as those who are “neither seamen covered by the Jones Act nor longshore workers covered by the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act.”  The definition of a “nonseafarer “is strongly tied with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case involving Yamaha Motor Corporation USA v Calhoun.  In that decision, the Court found that families of non-seafarers who are killed are eligible for wrongful death damages under state law. These claims will not be bound by restrictions on non-pecuniary damages imposed by federal maritime law.

That case involved a 12-year-old girl killed in a Jet Ski accident in Puerto Rico while driving a jet ski manufactured and distributed by Yamaha. Her parents filed action against Yamaha based on the wrongful death laws of Pennsylvania.  In Yamaha’s case, the deceased was a 12-year-old girl who was determined as a nonseafarer, and was therefore, found eligible for state law wrongful death remedies.

However, in Trinh v Dufrene Boats Inc., an appellate court in Louisiana ruled that a self employed fisherman was a nonseafarer. This has created some confusion about the status of these persons.

That case involved a 12-year-old girl killed in a Jet Ski accident in Puerto Rico while driving a jet ski manufactured and distributed by Yamaha. Her parents filed action against Yamaha based on the wrongful death laws of Pennsylvania.  However in Yamaha’s case, the deceased was a 12-year-old girl who was determined as a nonseafarer, and was therefore found eligible for state law wrongful death remedies.

The confusion continues because the Supreme Court continues to remain obscure on the matter. In the Yamaha decision, the Supreme Court spells out that a nonseafarer is one who is not a seaman or a longshore worker or a person otherwise engaged in maritime trade. Under this definition, a self employed fisherman may not be a Jones Act seaman or a longshore worker, but he is involved in a maritime trade, and therefore, must be placed in the seafarer category.

Expect more updates on this blog as this important issue continues to be played out.

Maritime lawyer Brian Beckcom is a Board Certified trial lawyer, whose primary focus is the representation of injured Jones Act seamen, tankermen, galleyhands, deckhands, drillers, oilrig workers, offshore workers and other maritime workers in accidents in Texas, around the country and in international waters.