CLAIM SUMMARY/DETERMINATION FORM

FACTS

On or about 20 April 2010, the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon (Deepwater Horizon) 

exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of the explosion and sinking, oil was discharged. 

The Coast Guard designated the source of the discharge and identified BP as a responsible party (RP). 

BP accepted the designation and advertised its OPA claims process. On 23 August 2010, the Gulf Coast 

Claims Facility (GCCF) began accepting and adjudicating certain individual and business claims on 

behalf of BP.

CLAIM AND CLAIMANT

On 14 September 2011, Gregory Stewart (the Claimant) presented an Optional Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund (OSLTF) Claim Form to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking $23,881.34 in loss of 

profits and impairment of earnings capacity that allegedly resulted from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

At the time of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Claimant was employed as a truck driver for Surbo 

Tubular Services, Inc. (Surbo) as well as Justice Transport, LLC.1

 The Claimant asserts that due to the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the demand for the Claimant’s services as a truck driver plummeted, forcing 

the Claimant to leave Surbo for other employment.2 The Claimant asserts he then worked for Justice 

Transport LLC (Justice) and then worked at Venture3 Transport Logistics.4

 The Claimant asserts that 

throughout 2010, his work as a truck driver was inconsistent and resulted in him suffering reduced 

income.5

The Claimant provided the following explanation regarding the calculation of his sum certain of 

$23,881.34: Claimant took his earnings from January 2010-May 2010 ($14,024.30) and took the monthly 

average of that figure ($2,804.86) and multiplied it by seven, representing what the Claimant would have 

earned if he continued to average the same earnings from June 2010-December 2010, for a product of 

$19,634.02.6

 The Claimant then took his actual earnings from June 2010-December 2010 ($16,555.88) 

and subtracted that from his projected earnings for a difference of $3,078.14.7

 The Claimant labeled this 

figure as lost earnings.8

 The Claimant then took his projected monthly earnings ($2,804.86) and 

subtracted his June 2010-December 2010 monthly earnings9 ($2,061.89) from it for a difference of 

$742.97.10 The Claimant then took this figure and multiplied it by twenty-eight, representing future 

losses, for a product of $20,803.16.11 The Claimant labeled this figure impairment of earnings capacity.12 

1 Document with section title ‘Eligibility, Impact and Damages’.

2 Document with section title ‘Eligibility, Impact and Damages’. 3 The company is now known as United Vision Logistics (United Vision).

4 Document with section title ‘Eligibility, Impact and Damages’.

5 Document with section title ‘Eligibility, Impact and Damages’.

6 Document with section title ‘Damages’.

7 Document with section title ‘Damages’.

8 Document with section title ‘Damages’.

9 The Claimant did not include October 2010 because it “is clearly an outlier and not a fair representation of [the 

Claimant’s] post spill earnings when compared to any other month.” 10 Document with section title ‘Damages’. 11 Document with section title ‘Damages’. 12 Document with section title ‘Damages’.

Claim Number N10036-1408

Claimant Gregory Stewart 

Type of Claimant Private (US) 

Type of Claim Loss of Profits and Impairment of Earnings Capacity

Amount Requested $23,881.34

 
The Claimant then added to this figure his lost earnings of $3,078.18 for a total of $23,881.34.13 The 

Claimant adopted this figure as his sum certain.14

APPLICABLE LAW

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) provides that each responsible party for a vessel or facility from 

which oil is discharged into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or exclusive economic 

zone is liable for removal costs and damages. 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). Damages include the loss of profits 

or impairment of earning capacity due to the injury, destruction or loss of real property, personal property, 

or natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any claimant. 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(2)(E).

The OSLTF, which is administered by the NPFC, is available to pay claims for uncompensated damages 

pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(4) and § 2713 and the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 33 

C.F.R. Part 136. With certain exceptions a claim must first be presented to the responsible party. 33 

U.S.C. § 2713(a). If the claim is either denied or not settled by any person by payment within 90 days 

after the date on which it was presented, the claimant may elect to commence an action in court or present 

the claim to the OSLTF. 33 U.S.C. § 2713(c).

Pursuant to the claims regulations, 33 C.F.R. § 136.233, a claimant must establish the following to prove 

loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity:

(a) That real or personal property or natural resources have been injured, destroyed, or lost.

(b) That the claimant’s income was reduced as a consequence of injury to, destruction of, or loss of 

property or natural resources, and the amount of that reduction.

(c) The amount of the claimant’s profits or earnings in comparable periods and during the period 

when the claimed loss or impairment was suffered, as established by income tax returns, financial 

statements, and similar documents. In addition, comparative figures for profits or earnings for the 

same or similar activities outside of the area affected by the incident also must be established.

(d) Whether alternative employment or business was available and undertaken and, if so, the amount 

of income received. All income that a claimant received as a result of the incident must be 

clearly indicated and any saved overhead and other normal expenses not incurred as a result of 

the incident must be established.

Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(2)(E) and 33 C.F.R. Part 136, a claimant must prove that any loss of income 

was due to injury, destruction or loss of real or personal property or of a natural resource as a result of a 

discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil. Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.105(a) and § 136.105(e)(6), 

the claimant bears the burden of providing to the NPFC all evidence, information, and documentation 

deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, to support the claim.

Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.235, the amount of compensation allowable for a claim involving loss of profits or 

impairment of earning capacity is limited to the actual net reduction or loss of earnings or profits suffered. 

Calculations for net reductions or losses must clearly reflect adjustments for:

(a) All income resulting from the incident;

(b) All income from alternative employment or business undertaken;

(c) Potential income from alternative employment or business not undertaken, but reasonably 

available;

(d) Any saved overhead or normal expenses not incurred as a result of the incident; and

(e) State, local, and Federal taxes.

DETERMINATION OF LOSS

The Claimant’s Submission to the OSLTF

13 Document with section title ‘Damages’. 14 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 September 2011.

 
In support of his claim, the Claimant submitted all of the documentation listed in enclosure (2).

Prior to presenting this Claim to the NPFC, the Claimant filed an Emergency Advance Payment (EAP) 

Claim with the GCCF for loss of profits and impairment of earnings capacity on 02 September 2010 in 

the amount of $12,800.00.15 The Claimant was assigned Claimant ID # 1092943 and Claim ID # 49068. 

The EAP Claim was denied on 23 October 2010.16 Additionally, the Claimant filed a Full Review Final 

(FRF) Claim with the GCCF for loss of profits and impairment of earnings capacity on 21 January 2011 

in the amount of $23,881.34.17 The Claimant was assigned Claim ID # 9234245. The FRF Claim is 

currently in the process of Re-Review and no decision has yet been issued on it.18

Based upon the evidence provided by the Claimant, it appears that the subject matter for the GCCF claims 

is the same as the subject matter of the claim before the NPFC, i.e., that due to the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill, demand for the Claimant’s services as truck driver plummeted, resulting in reduced income for the 

Claimant. The NPFC deems the Claimant’s GCCF claims to be properly presented to the RP and 

properly presented to the NPFC. Accordingly, this Claim Summary Determination for NPFC Claim 

N10036-1408 considers and addresses the earnings claimed in the claim up to $23,881.34 presented to the 

responsible party, specifically; GCCF Claim #’s 49068 (EAP) and 9234245 (FRF). 

NPFC Determination

The claim is denied. Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.105(a) and 136.105(e)(6), the Claimant bears the burden of 

providing to the NPFC all evidence, information and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, 

NPFC, to support the claim. The NPFC considered all documentation presented by the Claimant.

The Claimant asserts that due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the demand for his services as a truck 

driver plummeted, forcing the Claimant to leave his employment at Surbo for other employment 

opportunities.19 As a result of the Claimant leaving Surbo coupled with the reduced demand for truck 

driving services, the Claimant asserts he suffered lost income.20 In the effort to verify the Claimant’s 

claim, the NPFC contacted the Claimant’s former employers.

The NPFC was informed by Surbo that the Claimant’s employment at Surbo was not affected by the oil 

spill at all.21 Rather, the Claimant voluntarily quit his job to work for another trucking company.22 Thus, 

despite the Claimant’s assertion that he was “forced to leave Surbo”23 is incorrect when in fact he left 

voluntarily. Further, the Claimant asserts that even after leaving Surbo, “[the Claimant’s] work has 

remained inconsistent since the Oil Spill and the ultimate impact on [the Claimant] has been a steady 

reduction in earnings with no readily apparent increase on the horizon.”24 In the effort to verify the 

Claimant’s assertion regarding his work after leaving Surbo, the NPFC contacted the company that the 

Claimant left to work for, Justice. The NPFC was informed by Justice that at the time the Claimant left 

Surbo for Justice in June 2010; the Claimant had full knowledge that the drilling moratorium had 

negatively impacted approximately 80% of Justice’s business with the oil industry.25 Further, the NPFC 

was informed that Justice advised the Claimant against leaving his position at Surbo, where the Claimant 

had work available to him, for the less lucrative employment environment at Justice.26 Nevertheless, the 

Claimant began working at Justice in June 2010.27 Soon after his employment began, the Claimant 

15 Report from the GCCF dated 06 October 2011. 16 GCCF Denial Letter dated 23 October 2010. 17 Report from the GCCF dated 02 November 2011. 18 Report from the GCCF dated 02 November 2011. 19 Document with section title ‘Eligibility, Impact and Damages’. 20 Document with section title ‘Eligibility, Impact and Damages’. 21 PHONECON between the NPFC and Surbo Tubular Services, Inc. dated 06 October 2011. 22 PHONECON between the NPFC and Surbo Tubular Services, Inc. dated 06 October 2011. 23 Document with section title ‘Eligibility, Impact and Damages’. 24 Document with section title ‘Eligibility, Impact and Damages’. 25 PHONECON between the NPFC and Justice Transport LLC dated 16 November 2011. 26 PHONECON between the NPFC and Justice Transport LLC dated 16 November 2011. 27 PHONECON between the NPFC and Justice Transport LLC dated 16 November 2011.

 
experienced a lack of work due to the drilling moratorium.28 Additionally, the NPFC was informed that 

when jobs did become available, the Claimant declined to accept them.29 After two weeks of working at 

Justice, the Claimant voluntarily left that job for work at United Vision (formally Venture).30 Thus, 

despite the Claimant’s assertion that the oil spill resulted in inconsistent work opportunities, the 

Claimant’s own actions, choosing to work for a company despite having knowledge that the drilling 

moratorium was suffocating business opportunities, precluded him from obtaining steady gainful 

employment at Justice.

Additionally, the NPFC contacted the company the Claimant left Justice to work for, United Vision, to 

determine if the Deepwater Horizon oil spill effected the Claimant’s employment there. The NPFC was 

informed by United Vision that although United Vision experienced a slowdown in business due to the 

combination of the oil spill and the drilling moratorium, the Claimant often turned down trucking 

assignments made available for him.31 Moreover, the NPFC was informed that in general the Claimant 

did not make himself available to make trucking runs for United Vision.”32 Thus, although the Claimant 

asserts that his work opportunities remained inconsistent due to the oil spill; his own actions of declining 

work assignments at United Vision prevented him from maintaining gainful employment33 there.

Under 33 C.F.R. 136.9, persons submitting false claims or making false statements in connection with 

claims under this part may be subject to prosecution under Federal law, including but not limited to 18 

U.S.C. 287 and 1001. In addition, persons submitting written documentation in support of claims under 

this part which they know, or should know, is false or omits a material fact may be subject to a civil 

penalty for each claim.

The Claimant’s request for $23,881.34 is hereby denied because the evidence presented by the Claimant 

vice the detailed information provided by the Claimant’s employers as outlined above clearly 

demonstrates evidence of a material misrepresentation of fact in order for the Claimant to try to obtain 

funds from the Federal Government under false pretenses.

Claim Supervisor: NPFC Claims Adjudication Division

Date of Review: 11/21/11

Supervisor’s Actions: Denial approved

Supervisor’s Comments:

28 PHONECON between the NPFC and Justice Transport LLC dated 16 November 2011. 29 PHONECON between the NPFC and Justice Transport LLC dated 16 November 2011. 30 PHONECON between the NPFC and Justice Transport LLC dated 16 November 2011. 31 PHONECON between the NPFC and United Vision Logistics dated 20 October 2011. 32 PHONECON between the NPFC and United Vision Logistics dated 20 October 2011. 33 The NPFC notes that the Claimant’s last day working at United Vision was 12 May 2011.

 
Enclosure (2)

Evidence Presented by the Claimant in Support of Claim N10036-1408

- Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 September 2011;

- 2008 Form 1040 Federal Tax Return;

- 2009 Form 1040 Federal Tax Return;

- 2010 Form 1040 Federal Tax Return;

- Documents titled ‘Contractor Settlement’ for weeks ending 17 June 2010-24 June 2010, 15 July 

2010;

- Document titled ‘Venture Transport, Owner Settlement Statement’ for dates 13 September 2010;

- Documents titled ‘Venture Transport, Owner Settlement Statement’ with unreadable dates;

- Pay stubs from Venture Transport for dates 05 August 2010, 12 September 2010;

- Documents titled ‘Venture Transport, Owner Settlement Statement’ with unreadable dates;

- Document titled ‘Contractor Settlement’ for week ending 08 July 2010

- Documents titled ‘Venture Transport, Owner Settlement Statement’ with unreadable dates;

- Document titled ‘Contractor Settlement’ for week ending 01 July 2010;

- Documents titled ‘Venture Transport, Owner Settlement Statement’ with unreadable dates;

- Pay stubs from Venture Transport for dates 29 July 2010-12 August 2010;

- Document titled ‘Venture Transport Owner Settlement Statement’ with dates 16 August 2010-07 

13 September 2010;

- Partial photocopy of a pay stub from Surbo Tubular Services Inc.;

- Pay stubs from Surbo Tubular Services Inc. for period 11 January 2010-24 January 2010;

- Partial photocopies of pay stubs from Surbo Tubular Services Inc.;

- Document titled ‘Venture Transport Owner Settlement Statement’ for date 27 December 2010;

- Partial photocopy of a pay stub from Surbo Tubular Services, Inc.;

- Pay stub from Surbo Tubular Services, Inc. for period 29 March 2010-04 April 2010;

- Partial photocopy from Surbo Tubular Services, Inc. for period 28 December 2009-03 January 

2010, 03 May 2010-13 June 2010;

- Document with section title ‘Eligibility, Impact and Damages’;

- Document with section title ‘Damages’;

- Hand-written letter from the Claimant dated 10 October 2010;

- Hand-written letter from the Claimant dated 01 October 2010;

- Letter from Justice Transport, LLC;

- GCCF Full Review Final Payment Claim Form;

- Excerpt report titled ‘Roadmap to Recovery’;

- Additional Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 15 September 2011 containing identical sum 

certain to Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 September 2011;

- 2010 Individual Income Tax Declaration for Electronic Filing for state of Louisiana;

- 2010 Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement from Surbo Tubular Services;

- 2010 Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement from Venture Transport Logistic;

- Document from Acme Truck Line, Inc. listing the Claimant’s earnings for period 18 June 2008;

- Document from Acme Truck Line, Inc Leased Equipment Settlement for week ending 18 June 

2008;

- Invoices from Acme Truck Lines, Inc. dated 17 June 2008;

- Document titled ‘Contractor Settlement Week Ending 17 June 2010’.