Court of Appeals Decides Case Pitting Workers' Compensation Against the Longshore Act
The case of Bluff Harbor Marina v. Wunnenberg, No. 1-095 (Iowa App. May 25, 2011), presented an issue that is not common, but can have major consequences for claimants. This involved the competing jurisdiction for a work injury under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) and Iowa's Workers' Compensation statute.
Claimant suffered a tragic accident that led to his death. He was the manager of a marina along the Mississippi, and decided to remove a torn canopy using the bucket and boom of a mini-excavator. He positioned the excavator by driving it along ramps, which slipped, spilled the excavator into the water, and killed the claimant. Claimant filed an action under Iowa's workers' compensation laws.
Defendants argued that jurisdiction was appropriate under the LHWCA, and urged that the claim be dismissed. The commissioner rejected this argument and found in favor of the claimant on the death claim. In addressing this issue, the court noted that the LHWCA covered disability or death occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States, including adjoining piers or docks. Claimant argued that the exception in the LHWCA for persons "employed by a marina . . . who are not engaged in construction, replacement, or expansion of such marina (except for routine maintenance.)"
The court found that the agency had no expertise in interpreting the LHWCA, but also found that the decision of the commissioner concluding that claimant was engaged in routine maintenance was supported by substantial evidence. The court described claimant as a "paradigmatic routine maintenance worker" and awarded benefits under Iowa's workers' compensation statute.
Claimant suffered a tragic accident that led to his death. He was the manager of a marina along the Mississippi, and decided to remove a torn canopy using the bucket and boom of a mini-excavator. He positioned the excavator by driving it along ramps, which slipped, spilled the excavator into the water, and killed the claimant. Claimant filed an action under Iowa's workers' compensation laws.
Defendants argued that jurisdiction was appropriate under the LHWCA, and urged that the claim be dismissed. The commissioner rejected this argument and found in favor of the claimant on the death claim. In addressing this issue, the court noted that the LHWCA covered disability or death occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States, including adjoining piers or docks. Claimant argued that the exception in the LHWCA for persons "employed by a marina . . . who are not engaged in construction, replacement, or expansion of such marina (except for routine maintenance.)"
The court found that the agency had no expertise in interpreting the LHWCA, but also found that the decision of the commissioner concluding that claimant was engaged in routine maintenance was supported by substantial evidence. The court described claimant as a "paradigmatic routine maintenance worker" and awarded benefits under Iowa's workers' compensation statute.
Comments
Post a Comment