Opinion ID: 181608
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adjoining Area

Text: Although Consolidation's argument focuses on the ALJ's finding with respect to the usage part of the situs test, it also argues that the ALJ's conclusion leads to a definition of adjoining area far more expansive than that contemplated by the Act. Before 1972, the Act limited coverage to workers only for injuries occurring on navigable waters. Schwalb, 493 U.S. at 46, 110 S.Ct. 381. The pre-1972 situs test therefore drew a sharp line between injuries sustained over water and those suffered on land. P.C. Pfeiffer Co., Inc. v. Ford, 444 U.S. 69, 72, 100 S.Ct. 328, 62 L.Ed.2d 225 (1979). We have acknowledged the Supreme Court's repeated emphasis that the broad language employed in the 1972 amendments indicates that an expansive view of the legislation is appropriate. Nelson v. Am. Dredging Co., 143 F.3d 789, 795 (3d Cir.1998) (citing Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 268, 97 S.Ct. 2348, 53 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977)). Construing the statute as required in Nelson, we gave the word area its plain meaning and determined that it does not denote a building or structure as such, but an open space, indeed sometimes within a building or other structure. Id. at 797. [4] In Dravo Corp. v. Maxin, 545 F.2d 374 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 908, 97 S.Ct. 2973, 53 L.Ed.2d 1092 (1977), although we did not define adjoining, we held that the structural shop where the claimant was injured satisfied the situs test where [t]he great majority of the work performed in the shop [wa]s related to shipbuilding or ship repair. Id. at 381. We also held that the facility was an adjoining area, notwithstanding that it was located 2,000 feet from the navigable channel and separated from more of the facility by a city street. Id. at 380. Our sister circuits' rationale in defining adjoining area is also instructive. [5] The Fifth Circuit, in examining whether an injury which took place in a gear locker used for the storage and maintenance of gear used to perform the loading operations five blocks from any wharf, held that the broader meaning of adjointo be close to, to be near, or neighboringinstill[s] in the term its broader meanings ... in keeping with the spirit of the congressional purposes. Texports Stevedore Co. v. Winchester, 632 F.2d 504, 513-14 (5th Cir.1980). So long as the site is close to or in the vicinity of navigable waters, or in a neighboring area, an employee's injury can come within the [Act]. To require absolute contiguity would be to reenact the hard lines that caused longshoremen to move continually in and out of coverage. It would frustrate the congressional objectives of providing uniform benefits and covering land-based maritime activity. Id. at 514-15. The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by then-Circuit Judge Kennedy, also adopted a broad reading of adjoining area, finding that [i]n order to further Congress' goal of uniform coverage, the phrase `adjoining area' should be read to describe a functional relationship that does not in all cases depend upon physical contiguity. Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co. v. Herron, 568 F.2d 137, 141 (9th Cir.1978). That court enunciated a non-exclusive list of factors to consider in determining whether or not a site is an `adjoining area' under § 903(a), including the particular suitability of the site for the maritime uses referred to in the statute; whether adjoining properties are devoted primarily to uses in maritime commerce; the proximity of the site to the waterway; and whether the site is as close to the waterway as is feasible given all of the circumstances in the case. Id. The court found that a gear locker used for storing and repairing machinery and equipment used exclusively for loading and unloading vessels and located approximately 2,600 feet north of the edge of the water was a covered situs under the Act. Id. The expansive view of the 1972 amendments militates strongly in favor of defining adjoining area broadly. Thus, an area adjoins the navigable waters of the United States if it is close to or near those waters. Winchester, 632 F.2d at 514. However, the nearness of two locations is contextual. In this context, we find that in light of the spirit of the amendments and the Act's legislative history, our own expansive definition of area as articulated in Nelson, and the decisions of our sister circuits in Herron and Winchester, the Robena garage, located approximately one hundred yards (or three hundred feet) from the Monongahela River is an adjoining area under § 903(a). We view the ALJ's finding that the garage is located within and around essential elements of the loading operation of the maritime component of the Robena, specifically next to the stockpiled coal and 150 feet from the de-stock hopper, is evidence consistent with this conclusion.