Case Name: Theodore HENDERSON, Petitioner v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Penrod Drilling Company, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-04
Citations: 285 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 07-61028
Parties: Theodore HENDERSON, Petitioner v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Penrod Drilling Company, Respondents.
Judges: Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 203–204

Head Matter:
Theodore HENDERSON, Petitioner v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Penrod Drilling Company, Respondents.
No. 07-61028
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 4, 2008.
Theodore Henderson, pro se.
Donald Shire, U.S. Department of Labor, Thomas 0. Shepherd, Jr., Benefits Review Board, Washington, DC, David Duhon, U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration, New Orleans, LA, for Respondents.
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Henderson seeks review of the decision of the Benefits Review Board of the United States Department of Labor, which denied Henderson's claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("the Longshore Act"), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. We find that there is substantial evidence to support the determination of the Benefits Review Board. The jack-up rig on which Henderson worked was a "vessel," Demette v. Falcon Drilling Co., 280 F.3d 492, 498 n. 18 (5th Cir.2002), and substantial evidence supports the finding that Henderson's duties as a roustabout rendered him a member of the rig's "crew." Therefore, Henderson is excluded from coverage under the Long-shore Act, 33 U.S.C. § 902(3)(G), and the Benefits Review Board properly dismissed Henderson's claim.
Petition for review is DENIED. Motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.