Opinion ID: 1109615
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scholarship

Text: Scholarly commentators are somewhat divided on the question of whether Congress, in passing the LHWCA, intended to preempt the field of compensation benefits for injured harbor workers and longshoremen. Certain scholars have argued the comprehensive nature of the LHWCA points to Congressional intent to occupy the entire field and impose nationwide uniformity of remedies for injured longshoremen. [8] A clear majority of the commentators, however, find concurrent jurisdiction is the better rule for a variety of legal and policy reasons. We agree. As a policy matter, it would be undesirable in the highest degree to return to the notion that federal and state jurisdiction over claims such as Logan's are mutually exclusive. See Gilmore and Black, supra, at 425. Concurrent jurisdiction over certain maritime-related injuries eliminates guesswork as to the injured employee's choice of forum; no injured employee can fall through a jurisdictional crack. [9] Louisiana has a very important interest in assuring that its land-based citizens, like Logan, who work in hazardous maritime-related activities, are fully compensated for their injuries. Concurrent jurisdiction avoids the anomalous and undesirable situation of an injured harbor worker receiving less compensation than his injured colleague on shore. [10] Finally, application of a concurrent state remedy for an employee like Logan does no harm to the federal benefits floor provided by the LHWCA. Accordingly, we find concurrent jurisdiction is the better rule and should be applied to the fullest extent permissible.