to work out and i hope pass the illnesses are overcome and that there aren't any future ones who look to us all on that we have only one case for the morning  out compensation act in certain circumstances yes or it does depend things in this case i believe so yes or that dramatically different but slightly vehicle they ran a fab sign be a pole the lady driving was looking at her cellphone at the time and hit the the question is does he fit better under louisiana state where compensation or under longshore act jurisdiction under the longshore act has to be through the outcome no shot landay because he does not qualify or at least there was no evidence presented that he would qualify and i think what we're talking about though if we're talking about a substantial causal axis and we have to focus like that as the court in valid all that you have to focus on was this injury caused by operations conducted that maybe you are not just engaged in some manner of the up but i think what we're looking at the looking at their substantial nexus the the phrase as justice scalia pointed it's something that hasn't got any fines to it what we're looking at is substantial causal nexus that the the valladolid opinion talks about causation and it refers to causation was this caused by when they go back to the to the provisions working thirty three b they talk about resulting from means cause and cause and there has to be some sort of causal link and they said but for isn't good enough it has to be some sort of causal link between the injury that occurred and the operations being conducted on the shelf and it was abstract the statutory language being resulting from us our operations on the employers the actual direct employer had to be involved and this court said look that's the room our problem here we're talking about be the component in mays about the challenges to the jury instructions which were that causation and point your shoes are two separate things and in this case there are two separate things and then the maze court found that valor with requires a link between the injury and the extractive operation and that's precisely what we're talking about here there is no link other than about four causation between the injury that occur and the extract of operations of his employer or the operations of assumed there on the shelf what a from his fall where he either took a helicopter or out to one of the platforms so obviously it was important to do owens bay that it have persons who could come out of shore and out there he was proceeding to the platform and unfortunately was injured in an accident which you were paying him some small former person for them to be to undertake in order to get get out of the  is not relevant to the issue of whether or not he felt an intersection of the act every every employer who has anybody going offshore you need a certain number of people to operate platforms and so forth whether they're being paid to to travel or not they want you there on time they want you there to to be available for the helicopter or the crew boat or whatever so that's not but that's not determin him on time because he has important work to do out there he does mighty percent of his work out on that on one of the platform because it's a critical element of the extraction process as i'm i would be but i think the and in this case the injury if perhaps we were talking about a situation where he was i don't know pulling a trailer or something that is employer's goods on  malfunction somehow incog accident that might be different but that's a different factual scenario because the federal scenario we have is he was doing nothing and waited to work i ask means of transportation can be but again i go back to we have to focus in on what caused his injury and did extract of operations causes injury and they did not i mean we can we can say yes he way or something else i'm not sure what exactly would come your explanation when would somebody traveling on your explanation become invalid along shore and that's a very good question i don't i don't know if they i don't know if they would that argument is that the substantial nexus only requires a significant calls a leak in order to be met so that when actually cause mr boo jones injuries does not need to be an operational outer continental shelf but operations agree that mr meeson employee we all agree at this point that he's disabled from his injury and needs that result from any injury occurring as a result of operations conducted on the outer continental shelf for the purpose of exploring developing in all of those things mr boudreau is a nondestructive tester he was hired by his employer to go out to platforms on the outer continental shelf to test the vessels our tanks that store resources that were extracted directly from the outer continental shelf so his job was once he got on the platform he would use computers and other equipment that he carried with him every time he went out there to test this  guess of the structure and make sure it was not about to crack or leak or any of those things if he found that the structure was not stable he would say that in the whole process would be shut down for that vessel state so he would have to be taken out of production and he had to bring it there in fact after the accident his supervisor went to the scene of his accident got the equipment from his vehicle and brought that equipment all sure because somebody still had to get the job  to do the same type of stuff testing on those facilities and we don't have a breakdown of the percentage of natural resources extracted from the land base the philippi that came directly from the land the bas is them out that had resources piped in from the outer continental shelf so we're not sure that percentage of this time he also did some work inside the what like a shop is what they called it so if there was no job offshore he could go just to the deviation from traveling to from the home to a place to catch a helicopter what additional reasons for the travel wanted to visit his daughter along the way when a little bit on the way to do say here not so much it was what was in the trunk of his car i'm thinking more of his relatives and his mission in additional missions he may have been on as he was eventually going to land in the place to i'm not sure if you threaten a helicopter that morning i think it was a boat out of freshwater city but he had to go from his home to freshwater city in he had to be there a certain time it's employer needed to him to be there at that salaries and all  but what i want to hear is when they would you accept that some deviations from that from the necessary direct route might indeed alter been else s if he had another chore he wanted to accomplish at the asking you a hypothetical yet mr beecher went to mcdonald's that's the furthest occasion he got he didn't stop to go to a girlfriend's house he did not stop at walmart to buy some toiletries that he might need over the next couple weeks even like his travel that morning was directly from his home he picked up breakfast on the way to freshwater city to be there at the time he and i agree why not on the whole x of your case that the only deviation was basically along the route of self to get breakfast or whatever meal that was your name except that other deviations mayor and indeed prevent coverage if anything he was going it ultimate destination was where to pick up his next mode of transportation but he deviated that for a different purpose or because it was a different route would you say creates the problem i think we would need to look at the worker compensation cases in general seems like it's people outside of the course and scope of employment to see where the line is drawn there typically if what the individual is doing at the time is close enough to their employer's mission as a whole it's covered in the course and of employment and they don't take them outside of workers compensation before for just a small deviation from mr big shows case there is no major deviation he did not go far enough in my opinion in any way from his says an accountant's workplace injury would not be covered even if related outer continental shelf project while somebody is injuries and a helicopter en route to the outer continental shelf well that again is just an example two examples but is a for the helicopter a boat ride in this case the example picks up when the person is basically captive is on someone and transportation is going to the rig where here you have a some i in a car who has many options as he goes along the way that would be one place to draw the line i would think and so far as coverage which is only what he's on a boat a helicopter otherwise what do you make that distinction mr bowser to sensually captive from the time he leaves his home to make it's a freshwater city to get on the but he cannot make any deviations in that trip that will get him late to the boat or late to the helicopter  big strong but that's the word i use i can understand why you picked up on it but he's not captive in any meaningful sense he just got to get there on time and he got there on time he's paid for going there he's traveling a very far distance from his home part of his compensation was mileage and time for getting to freshwater city if there's no other reason that mr bridger would have been in that area it's a for us location it's similar to perkins where the court noted there that traveling to a four off location requires inducement in the form of pay to get workers to travel that distance and go out in that site the other thing that differentiates if you look at nine twenty three where the longshore workers compensation act talks about employees they give an example of an exclusion there like they list specifically individuals employed exclusively reform office clerical secretarial security o data processing were or not covered by longshore workers compensation act unless they don't have a state worker's compensation all that applies to them so if they're somebody that for some reason wouldn't employer pays what order are on and nd the attorneys thieves and calls that you want you want us to make that decision is that the standard procedure followed as it usually remanded to the who computes the long story statute requires that i think attorneys fees at each court level for the work that's what before that court i understand but but so you want to calculate it ourselves as opposed to reman never circuit that was and i think there is no fist circuit law on the not to use a tainted phrase on the coming going on the transportation to work side actually i think we said i think vincent case up for us because what they say in their case is their decision is that we don't want to cover a land based office employees and that the example given by the nicer it was the accountants but we don't probably more important but only based on the straight course decision i was talking about the civil buffer test and why it rejected the rd circuit's test but also when you look at the bigger test the bigger cases this court decided the court said mr baker was a carpenter and he was working on a housing model that was going to go out to one of these o c s rigs that they said is not covered because he's entirely land base and is employer doesn't have anything to do with things once it gets  and necessary part of those operations workers don't stay on these platforms for the long term and they're usually there for a week out and we fell for a few weeks on a few weeks off the superhero so that his typical stay was ten dollars to twelve dollars days then any of that is a relatively short stays and workers therefore have to travel back and forth in the regular course of c s operations that travel also furthers o c s operations because getting those workers few c s is the only way those operations can continue but simply  transportation of the shelf you stop expect of operations because there's no one there to do the work or have to moral would you agree with what miss miss said that when we're looking at my questions to her about  deviations from the necessary route from where the starting point years to the place to pick up the transportation to the rig those are basically the kinds of concepts a general worker's comp law would would explain mileage if we have an account who is paid for a minute he walks out his front door and he's paid mileage to drive to work and he gets in an accident well if that's going to be the standard he's going to be curt and that doesn't make any sense that's not going to make any sense what we have to do to make sense of all of this and not him and if we have to go back and look at the actual terms of the statute and the statute says it covers injuries resulting from any injury occurring as a result of operation conducted on the outer continental shelf general duties out there not whether you're out there from the time it's from were you injured injuries occur as a result of o c s going to the right but that's goes to the issue of whether or not he's in the course and scope of the point of the course and scope question and i'm not aware of any and the court but i thought i heard you say his word didn't have anything to do with the  n none of this work did it but the injury at the time that he was injured he wasn't doing anything that had anything to do with the operations there's nothing about his employer or operations that cost money have what the statute requires in my opinion what this actually requires is a causative link between the injury and the operation and in this case other than or the fact he was traveling to go when he was going to do was that important that they operate i'm not i'm not certain i'm not certain of that was in the record i recall whether it was or wasn't but to me as far as cause of the accident no it wouldn't be significant because you have a situation where suppose suppose the accountant couldn't do his reports on time and for some reason that they failed the government deadline and had  platform now it would be the same sort of thing everybody who mostly everybody working out there has a job everybody has an obligation everybody has something that needs to be done and if you're out there well that's somebody's got to do it we've got to get the equipment there we've got to get a person or to do something i think if you look at the cases we look at all we cases about coming and going and judge southwick what you detail discussion on those i am not aware of any case involving the coming and going rule that pivoted on jurisdiction they're all corson's go with employment cases as far as i know if there's a case out there i'm not aware that none of the coming and going cases have anything to do with fact that the act does not require the injury to result from a person's particular job but instead result from extraction activities on the outer continental shelf it doesn't it's not may have misspoken i'm not saying that his particular copy had to be particularly directly involved in the question i'm looking at the text of the of the section with which we're he's required he's a mystery element to get the job done because the minerals tracked it so i don't see that there's a distinction i think what we need to focus on is did the activities involved in extract