Case Name: John F. ALFORD, Anthony R. Buller, Hector Cantu and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Petitioners, v. AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1981-09-22
Citations: 668 F.2d 791
Docket Number: Nos. 78-1901, 78-1633, 78-1607, 78-1601, 78-1598 and 78-1544
Parties: John F. ALFORD, Anthony R. Buller, Hector Cantu and Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Petitioners, v. AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent.
Judges: Before BROWN, GEWIN and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 668
Pages: 791–791

Head Matter:
John F. ALFORD, Anthony R. Buller, Hector Cantu and Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Petitioners, v. AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Respondent.
Nos. 78-1901, 78-1633, 78-1607, 78-1601, 78-1598 and 78-1544.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 22, 1981.
Schechter & Shelton, Houston, Tex., Louis Bien, Galveston, Tex., Gilbert Renaut, Washington, D. C., Martin W. Dies, Orange, Tex., for petitioners.
Kyle Wheelus, Jr., Beaumont, Tex., for respondent.
Before BROWN, GEWIN and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.
Due to his death on May 15, 1981, Judge Gewin did not participate in this decision. The petition for rehearing is being decided by a quorum, 28 U.S.C. 46(d).

Opinion:
BY THE COURT:
IT IS ORDERED that respondent's petition for rehearing, or, in the alternative, motion for clarification and modification of the Court's opinion entered on September 4, 1981, 655 F.2d 86, is GRANTED to the extent of changing this portion of the fourth paragraph to read:
Since the black diamond navigational signal was . . essential . . and was being constructed for installation on a barge to be used in transporting ship modules to the shipyard in the East, the activity was sufficiently related to maritime commerce as to be maritime employment.
In all of other respects it is DENIED.