Opinion ID: 1249162
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Status and Situs Requirements for LHWCA Coverage

Text: The Supreme Court has explained that to qualify for LHWCA compensation, a worker ordinarily must satisfy both a situs requirement and a status requirement. Dir., OWCP v. Perini N. River Assocs., 459 U.S. 297, 299, 103 S.Ct. 634, 74 L.Ed.2d 465 (1983). It is undisputed that Peru was injured on navigable waters or certain adjoining land areas, namely, on board the USS Missouri, and therefore satisfies the situs requirement. Id. ; see also 33 U.S.C. § 903(a). But SSV argues that Peru does not satisfy the status requirement. Congress added an express status requirement to the LHWCA in 1972, specifying who qualifies as an employee covered by the act. In 1984, Congress enumerated specific types of workers who do not qualify as employees under the LHWCA. The LHWCA now provides that [t]he term employee means any person engaged in maritime employment, including any longshoreman or other person engaged in longshoring operations, and any harbor-worker including a ship repairman, shipbuilder, and ship-breaker, but such term does not include  (A) individuals employed exclusively to perform office clerical, secretarial, security, or data processing work; (B) individuals employed by a club, camp, recreational operation, restaurant, museum, or retail outlet; (C) individuals employed by a marina and who are not engaged in construction, replacement, or expansion of such marina (except for routine maintenance); (D) individuals who (i) are employed by suppliers, transporters, or vendors, (ii) are temporarily doing business on the premises of an employer described in paragraph (4), and (iii) are not engaged in work normally performed by employees of that employer under this chapter; (E) aquaculture workers; (F) individuals employed to build, repair, or dismantle any recreational vessel under sixty-five feet in length; (G) a master or member of a crew of any vessel; or (H) any person engaged by a master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under eighteen tons net; if individuals described in clauses (A) through (F) are subject to coverage under a State workers' compensation law. 33 U.S.C. § 902(3) (emphasis added). Congress's creation of an express status requirement coincided with its relaxation of the situs requirement. Before the 1972 Amendments, it was only necessary for an injured employee to satisfy a situs requirement; however, under the situs requirement then in effect, the injury had to have occurred upon the navigable water of the United States. Ramos v. Universal Dredging Corp., 653 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir.1981). In 1972, Congress extended LHWCA coverage to individuals injured on areas adjoining navigable waters, including `any . . . pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, [or] marine railway,' in order to avoid anomalies inherent in a system that drew lines at the water's edge. Ne. Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 279, 281, 97 S.Ct. 2348, 53 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977) (quoting 33 U.S.C. § 903(a)). The expansion of the situs covered by the LHWCA to include rather large shoreside areas necessitated an affirmative description of the particular employees working in those areas who would be covered. Herb's Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414, 423, 105 S.Ct. 1421, 84 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985). Both we and the Supreme Court have construed the general definition of employee in the first paragraph of 33 U.S.C. § 902(3) narrowly to encompass only those employees engaged in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel. McGray Const. Co., 181 F.3d at 1012 (quoting Herb's Welding, Inc., 470 U.S. at 424, 105 S.Ct. 1421) (internal quotation marks omitted). Peru clearly does not fall within this definition. However, the Supreme Court, in Perini, concluded that Congress, in enacting the 1972 amendments, intended to broaden, not narrow, the LHWCA's overall coverage. 459 U.S. at 315, 103 S.Ct. 634. The Court thus held that individuals who would have qualified for LHWCA benefits prior to 1972 because they were injured on navigable waters would not be excluded from coverage because they were not engaged in traditional maritime employment, so long as they did not fall under one of the act's express exclusions. Id. at 324, 103 S.Ct. 634. As the Second Circuit explained in Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Morganti, 412 F.3d 407 (2d Cir. 2005), under Perini, certain kinds of situs will also fulfill the status requirement. Id. at 412. It is undisputed that Peru was injured on navigable waters. Therefore, under Perini, we agree with the BRB that Peru is eligible for coverage under the LHWCA absent the applicability of any exclusions.