Opinion ID: 181608
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Customarily Used in an Enumerated Activity

Text: In addition to being adjoining, the area must also customarily [be] used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel. 33 U.S.C. § 903(a). Here, the ALJ found, and the Board affirmed, that the garage serviced aspects of the loading process, thereby ensuring the smooth operation of the maritime component of the Robena facility. (App. at 11.) Under Nelson, it is enough, the Board determined, that the garage had some maritime purpose. The site at issue in Nelson was a beach, which we found to be customarily used by at least one maritime employer to unload its vessel. 143 F.3d at 797. That usage satisfied an enumerated ground because of the area's use in unloading vessels. Here, it is undisputed that the Robena garage was not directly or immediately used for loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel. It was used, however, to house and repair equipment necessary for these purposes. Subsequently, the Board held that [t]he garage has a functional nexus with the loading process on the river sufficient to bring it within the scope of Section [90] 3(a). (App. at 12 (citing Pearson v. Jered Brown Bros., et al., 39 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. 59 (2005), aff'd on recon. en banc, 40 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. 2 (2006)).) Thus, the question to resolve is whether it is sufficient for an adjoining area to have a functional nexus with one of the activities enumerated in § 903(a). The Fifth and Ninth Circuits have held that a functional nexus between the site and the maritime activities is sufficient for the location of the injury to satisfy § 903(a) where the facility is used for repair or storage of equipment integral or essential to the enumerated purposes in the Act. Herron, employing a functional relationship test, found that [a]ll of the machinery and equipment in the Brady-Hamilton gear locker was used exclusively for loading and unloading vessels. 568 F.2d at 141. Thus, the court concluded that an injury suffered in the gear locker, which was used as an integral part of longshoring operations including the loading and unloading of vessels, occurred at a place within the situs requirements of the Act. Id. Similarly, the Fifth Circuit held that a gear room, housing repair and maintenance equipment for loading and unloading operations, was a part of the on-going overall loading process. Based on this situation, the Court held that the gear room ha[d] a sufficient nexus to the waterfront to meet the situs requirement. Winchester, 632 F.2d at 504, 515. More recently, the Fifth Circuit has clarified that its holding in Winchester teaches that if a particular area is associated with items used as part of the loading process, the area need not itself be directly involved in loading or unloading a vessel or physically connected to the point of loading or unloading. Coastal Prod. Servs. Inc. v. Hudson, 555 F.3d 426, 434 (5th Cir. 2009). Since the Supreme Court's holding in Caputo, we have not addressed whether a functional nexus is sufficient to satisfy the situs requirement. [6] In Sea-Land v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, we stated that the key to the status determination is the functional relationship of the employee's activity to maritime transportation[.] 540 F.2d 629, 638 (3d Cir.1976). We find it to be consistent with our ruling on status, looking to whether an employee performs work that is integral and essential to the loading process, as well as with the Supreme Court's instruction to construe the statute liberally, Caputo, 432 U.S. at 268, 97 S.Ct. 2348, to apply a similar functional nexus test to the situs requirement. The repair work employing loading and unloading equipment in the garage satisfies the functional nexus test and leads us to conclude that the garage is a covered situs. Consolidation argues that applying the functional nexus test must lead to a different result. Principally, Consolidation posits that Winchester and Herron are distinguishable from this case. It argues that the sites in question in those cases were used exclusively to service equipment used in the loading and unloading process, whereas the garage in this case was used to service all heavy equipment used at Robena, whether or not it related to the unloading or loading of vessels. The Board is correct insofar as it relies on Nelson to hold that exclusive use of the garage for an enumerated purposes is not necessary. Nelson, 143 F.3d at 796-97; see also Coastal Prod., 555 F.3d at 437. Thus, using the functional nexus test, Consolidation's argument that the non-exclusive use of the Robena garage for repair of loading equipment prevents its coverage under the Act is unavailing. Further, Consolidation asserts that the Terex on which Smith was working when he was injured was itself not used exclusively for loading or unloading. Thus, Consolidation argues that we should instead rely on the Board's decision in Maraney v. Consolidation Coal Co., 37 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. 97 (2003), which held that a mobile equipment operator using a Terex to haul refuse was not covered by the Act. Maraney, however, is plainly distinguishable from this case. In Maraney, the Board held that an entire maritime facility was not a covered situs under § 903(a). [W]here a site contains distinct areas used for loading and unloading, and for non-maritime manufacturing purposes, the separate manufacturing area has been held outside the Act's coverage. Id. at 100. Thus, the Board held that the location at issue in Maraney  which [wa]s merely a repository for slate and slurry, which are by-products of the cleaning process, and which d[id] not store products destined for vessels ha[d] no functional relationship with the navigable water where employer's unloading/loading operations occur[ed]. Id. at 102. Here, the Board found that the Robena garage had at least some relationship to the loading and unloading process: The administrative law judge found that the operations of the garage are related in part to the loading process since repairs are undertaken there of equipment essential to the loading and unloading of coal. (App. at 11.) In addition, the ALJ found that [t]he Terex machine on which claimant was working when he was injured was brought in for repair after breaking down while loading coal onto the de-stock hopper belt, which loaded the processed coal back onto barges located on the Monongahela. ( Id. ) These findings are supported by substantial evidence and are more than sufficient to demonstrate a functional nexus between the garage and the loading and unloading activities enumerated in § 903(a), as the garage serviced at least some equipment essential to the loading of coal. This conclusion is reinforced by the Supreme Court's holding that an expansive view of the extended coverage under the 1972 Amendments is proper. Caputo, 432 U.S. at 268, 97 S.Ct. 2348.