A MOBILE OFFSHORE DRILLING UNIT EMPLOYEE'S PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM UNDER THE JONES ACT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED UPON SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE, AT THE TIME OF HIS INJURY, WAS NOT A SEAMAN FOR PURPOSES OF THE JONES ACT BECAUSE THE DRILLING UNIT WAS

BRUCE HYMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE U.S.A., INC.; SEDCO FOREX CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 29802
December 5, 2006, Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant employee sought review of a judgment from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which granted summary judgment to appellee employer in the employee's suit alleging claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law in connection with an injury that the employee sustained on board a mobile offshore drilling unit, as well as in connection with the employee's discharge.

OVERVIEW: The employee was injured on a staircase of the drilling unit before the construction of that unit was completed. The employee was temporarily transferred to an on-shore facility. A few years later, while on board the drilling unit, the employee removed a skid resistant plate from the staircase so as to replicate conditions at the time of his injury for purposes of taking a photograph. The employee was terminated. The court held that (1) the employee was not a seaman for purposes of the Jones Act at the time of his injury because the drilling unit was still under construction and thus was not yet a vessel in navigation; (2) the employee was a seaman for purposes of the Jones Act at the time of his discharge because the drilling unit had been completed by that time and the employee had been assigned to work on the drilling unit's crew; and (3) the employee's retaliatory discharge claim failed because the evidence showed that the employee was discharged because he had a conflict with a supervisor and because the employee disassembled the staircase without asking permission to do so, rather than because the employee had filed a personal injury suit.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Bookmark:      Bookmark A%20MOBILE%20OFFSHORE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20EMPLOYEE%27S%20PERSONAL%20INJURY%20CLAIM%20UNDER%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20WAS%20PROPERLY%20DISMISSED%20UPON%20SUMMARY%20JUDGMENT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20EMPLOYEE%2C%20AT%20THE%20TIME%20OF%20HIS%20INJURY%2C%20WAS%20NOT%20A%20SEAMAN%20FOR%20PURPOSES%20OF%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20WAS at del.icio.us      Digg A%20MOBILE%20OFFSHORE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20EMPLOYEE%27S%20PERSONAL%20INJURY%20CLAIM%20UNDER%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20WAS%20PROPERLY%20DISMISSED%20UPON%20SUMMARY%20JUDGMENT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20EMPLOYEE%2C%20AT%20THE%20TIME%20OF%20HIS%20INJURY%2C%20WAS%20NOT%20A%20SEAMAN%20FOR%20PURPOSES%20OF%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20WAS at Digg.com      Bookmark A%20MOBILE%20OFFSHORE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20EMPLOYEE%27S%20PERSONAL%20INJURY%20CLAIM%20UNDER%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20WAS%20PROPERLY%20DISMISSED%20UPON%20SUMMARY%20JUDGMENT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20EMPLOYEE%2C%20AT%20THE%20TIME%20OF%20HIS%20INJURY%2C%20WAS%20NOT%20A%20SEAMAN%20FOR%20PURPOSES%20OF%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20WAS at Spurl.net      Bookmark A%20MOBILE%20OFFSHORE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20EMPLOYEE%27S%20PERSONAL%20INJURY%20CLAIM%20UNDER%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20WAS%20PROPERLY%20DISMISSED%20UPON%20SUMMARY%20JUDGMENT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20EMPLOYEE%2C%20AT%20THE%20TIME%20OF%20HIS%20INJURY%2C%20WAS%20NOT%20A%20SEAMAN%20FOR%20PURPOSES%20OF%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20WAS at Simpy.com      Bookmark A%20MOBILE%20OFFSHORE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20EMPLOYEE%27S%20PERSONAL%20INJURY%20CLAIM%20UNDER%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20WAS%20PROPERLY%20DISMISSED%20UPON%20SUMMARY%20JUDGMENT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20EMPLOYEE%2C%20AT%20THE%20TIME%20OF%20HIS%20INJURY%2C%20WAS%20NOT%20A%20SEAMAN%20FOR%20PURPOSES%20OF%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20WAS at NewsVine      Blink this A%20MOBILE%20OFFSHORE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20EMPLOYEE%27S%20PERSONAL%20INJURY%20CLAIM%20UNDER%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20WAS%20PROPERLY%20DISMISSED%20UPON%20SUMMARY%20JUDGMENT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20EMPLOYEE%2C%20AT%20THE%20TIME%20OF%20HIS%20INJURY%2C%20WAS%20NOT%20A%20SEAMAN%20FOR%20PURPOSES%20OF%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20WAS at blinklist.com      Bookmark A%20MOBILE%20OFFSHORE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20EMPLOYEE%27S%20PERSONAL%20INJURY%20CLAIM%20UNDER%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20WAS%20PROPERLY%20DISMISSED%20UPON%20SUMMARY%20JUDGMENT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20EMPLOYEE%2C%20AT%20THE%20TIME%20OF%20HIS%20INJURY%2C%20WAS%20NOT%20A%20SEAMAN%20FOR%20PURPOSES%20OF%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20WAS at Furl.net      Bookmark A%20MOBILE%20OFFSHORE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20EMPLOYEE%27S%20PERSONAL%20INJURY%20CLAIM%20UNDER%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20WAS%20PROPERLY%20DISMISSED%20UPON%20SUMMARY%20JUDGMENT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20EMPLOYEE%2C%20AT%20THE%20TIME%20OF%20HIS%20INJURY%2C%20WAS%20NOT%20A%20SEAMAN%20FOR%20PURPOSES%20OF%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20WAS at reddit.com      Fark A%20MOBILE%20OFFSHORE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20EMPLOYEE%27S%20PERSONAL%20INJURY%20CLAIM%20UNDER%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20WAS%20PROPERLY%20DISMISSED%20UPON%20SUMMARY%20JUDGMENT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20EMPLOYEE%2C%20AT%20THE%20TIME%20OF%20HIS%20INJURY%2C%20WAS%20NOT%20A%20SEAMAN%20FOR%20PURPOSES%20OF%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20WAS at Fark.com      Bookmark A%20MOBILE%20OFFSHORE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20EMPLOYEE%27S%20PERSONAL%20INJURY%20CLAIM%20UNDER%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20WAS%20PROPERLY%20DISMISSED%20UPON%20SUMMARY%20JUDGMENT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20EMPLOYEE%2C%20AT%20THE%20TIME%20OF%20HIS%20INJURY%2C%20WAS%20NOT%20A%20SEAMAN%20FOR%20PURPOSES%20OF%20THE%20JONES%20ACT%20BECAUSE%20THE%20DRILLING%20UNIT%20WAS at Yahoo! MyWeb