CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : N10036-1634

Claimant : Frederick Manuel

Type of Claimant : Private (US)

Type of Claim : Loss of Profits and Earning Capacity

Amount Requested : $85,000.00

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 

claims for certain individual and business claims on behalf of BP.

CLAIM AND CLAIMANT:

On 10 January 2012, Frederick Manuel, (the Claimant), presented an Optional Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund (OSLTF) Claim Form to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking 

$85,000.00 in loss of profits and impairment of earnings capacity that allegedly resulted from the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1

At the time of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Claimant was employed as a pipe technician 

through Labor Finders, Inc. (LFI), a temporary employment agency in Theodore, Alabama. 2

 

LFI placed the Claimant with Pipeline Induction Heat, Inc. beginning 13 July 2008.3

 Pipeline 

Induction Heat applies coatings to pipes for Technip USA Inc., (Technip) at its plant in 

Theodore, Alabama. Technip builds pipeline systems for deep-sea oil projects in the Gulf of 

Mexico.4

 The Claimant asserted that he was laid-off on 16 May 2010 due to the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. 5

 After being laid-off, the Claimant worked with Ashland Services, an oil-spill 

cleanup contractor for a couple of months and received unemployment from the State of 

Alabama.6

Prior to presenting this claim to the NPFC, the Claimant filed an Emergency Advance Payment 

(EAP) claim with the GCCF for loss of earnings on 10 October 2010 in the amount of 

$50,000.00.7 He was assigned GCCF Claimant ID # 3139159 and GCCF Claim # 194002. The 

1 The Claimant’s original Optional OSLTF form denoted damages of $25,000.00 for subsistence use, $50,000 for 

natural resources, and $50,000.00 for loss of profits and earnings capacity. On 9 January 2012, the NPFC contacted 

the Claimant via phone to request that he clarify his sum certain and claimed damages. The Claimant faxed the 

NPFC a signed letter on 9 January 2012 revising his claim damages to $85,000.00 for “losses stemming from the 

2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Disaster.” The NPFC again contacted the Claimant for clarification of his 

claimed damages on 11 January 2012 – the Claimant stated that his sole claim to the NPFC is for loss of profits and 

impairment of earning capacity in the amount of $85,000.00. 2 Optional OSLTF Form, dated 28 October 2011.

3 PHONECON between the NPFC and LFI on 21 February 2012. 

4 See copies of Technip industry information submitted to GCCF in admin record

5 Optional OSLTF Form, dated 28 October 2011. 6 Optional OSLTF Form, dated 28 October 2011.

7 Report from the GCCF, dated 21 February 2012. 

 
EAP claim was denied by the GCCF on 29 November 2010.8

 The Claimant also filed a Full 

Review Final Payment (FRF) claim for loss of earnings on 2 January 2011 in the amount of 

$50,000.00.9 He was assigned GCCF Claim # 9102404; this claim is currently under Re-Review 

by the GCCF.10 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:

On May 1, 2012, the Claimant sent a request for reconsideration to the NPFC stating he would 

like the NPFC to reconsider his claim. 

The NPFC denied the claim originally on March 2, 2012 on the basis that under 33 C.F.R. § 

136.103(a), except for limited exceptions not applicable to the Claimant, all claims for removal 

costs or damages must be presented first to the responsible party (RP). The Claimant presented 

an Emergency Advance payment claim for $50,000.00 for loss of earnings and then, after the 

EAP claim was denied, he submitted a Full Review Final Payment claim for loss of earnings in 

the amount of $50,000.00. Claimant then presented a loss of profits and impairment of earnings 

capacity claim to the NPFC seeking damages in the amount of $85,000.00. Any claimed amount 

of damages exceeding $50,000.00 was not properly presented to the RP/GCCF pursuant to 33 

C.F.R. § 136.103(a) and was denied.

The remainder of the claim was denied because the Claimant failed to prove that his alleged 

financial loss was due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In his claim submission to the NPFC, 

the Claimant asserted that he was laid-off for lack of work at LFI due to the Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill. On 21 February 2012, the NPFC contacted Crystal Hanna Williams, Office Manager 

for LFI in Theodore, Alabama, who verified that the Claimant was employed as needed by 

Pipeline Induction Heat. Ms. Williams further elaborated that the Claimant was laid-off on 15 

May 2010 because of the moratorium on off-shore drilling.11 Consequently, the Claimant failed 

to prove his alleged loss was a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as opposed to other 

factors such as permitting delays and the drilling moratorium, which are considered intervening 

causes and thus not a consequence of the oil spill.

Accordingly, this claim was denied because the Claimant failed to meet his burden to: (1) make 

proper presentment of some of the costs claimed to the NPFC pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 

136.103(a), and (2) demonstrate that his alleged loss was due to the injury, destruction or loss of 

property or natural resources as a result of a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil.

RECONSIDERATION CLAIM ANALYSIS:

The Claimant requested reconsideration which was received by the NPFC on May 1, 2012. The 

Claimant provided a one-page letter that requested his claim be reconsidered and the Claimant 

requested a 60-day extension of time to receive answers to two questions he posed in his 

reconsideration letter. Additionally, the Claimant stated he felt like he had additional 

documentation to substantiate his claim but failed to provide any such documentation with his 

request for reconsideration by his 60 day deadline of May 2, 2012.

NPFC Determination on Reconsideration

8 EAP Denial Letter from the GCCF, dated 29 November 2010. 

9 Report from the GCCF, dated 21 February 2012.

10 Report from the GCCF, dated 21 February 2012. 11 PHONECON between the NPFC and Labor Finders on 21 February 2012. 

 
Under 33 CFR 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 CFR § 136.233, a claimant must establish loss of profits or 

impairment of earning capacity and that the loss was due to the destruction or injury to real or 

personal property or natural resources. The NPFC considered all the documentation submitted 

by the Claimant. The request for reconsideration must be in writing and include the factual or 

legal grounds for the relief requested, providing any additional support for the claim. 33 CFR 

136.115(d). 

The NPFC performed a de novo review of the entire claim submission upon reconsideration. 

The request for reconsideration was a one-page letter with two questions. The Claimant’s 

request states ...”I have read my Determination letter thoroughly from the NPFC and there is one 

clause that I do not thoroughly understand; which is Under 33 CFR 136.103(a) whereas the 

amount of damages exceeded the amount that was presented to the RP. Does that mean that the 

same amount presented to the RP has to be the same amount to the NPFC?” and the second 

question posed was ...” Should I in fact re-submit my claim to the RP before the NPFC can 

reconsider?”

On May 2, 2012, upon receipt of the request for reconsideration and the 60-day request for 

extension, the NPFC called the Claimant and left a message that the request for a 60-day 

extension on his reconsideration is denied because the Claimant waited until the day before his 

60-day time limit to request reconsideration and the Claimant failed to demonstrate that he had 

already requested information from a third party source which would have supported the need for 

additional time.

Regarding the Claimant’s first question on reconsideration of whether the Claimant should resubmit a claim to the RP before the NPFC can reconsider this claim, the NPFC offers that the 

Claimant can only pursue this claim with the NPFC in the amount of $50,000.00 since that was 

the amount previously presented to the RP. 

On May 3, 2012, the Claimant faxed an additional nine (9) pages of documentation in support of 

his request for reconsideration. While the additional documentation was not presented to the 

NPFC in a timely fashion the NPFC reviewed it and identified the following:

• One Page letter dated May 3, 2012 whereby the Claimant changes his sum certain 

from $85,000.00 to $50,000.00 so that he is in line with what he has previously 

presented to the RP;

• Duplicate letters from Labor Finders dated April 26, 2011 and November 14, 

2001, respectively; and

• Copy of the May 30, 2010 implementation of the Moratorium on Drilling NTL 

No. 2010-N04.

The Claimant asserted in his letter that the employer’s statement that the Claimant was laid off as 

a result of the moratorium on drilling is erroneous. While the Claimant is in disagreement with 

what Ms. Williams of LFI stated to the NPFC, he has not provided documented evidence from 

the employer that contradicts the information provided to the NPFC as to the reason for the 

Claimant’s lay off; therefore, the NPFC’s original determination stands. The Claimant has failed 

to demonstrate any loss he may have sustained was the result of the injury, destruction or loss of 

property or natural resources as a result of a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil 

as opposed to other intervening causes such as the moratorium on off-shore drilling as stated by 

the employer. 
Based on the foregoing information, this claim is denied upon reconsideration.

Claim Supervisor: Thomas Morrison

Date of Supervisor’s review: 5/16/12

Supervisor Action: Denial on reconsideration approved

Supervisor’s Comments: