The Survivors Of A Man Killed While Working On A Barge In Ocean Waters Were Entitled To Benefits Under The LHWCA But Not To Exemplary Damages Under The Texas Workers' Compensation Act; The Texas Act Prohibited Benefits To Workers Covered By The LHWCA, And
MARIA GENOVEVA ANAYA, MARIO ANAYA, EDUARDO ANAYA, JESSICA ANAYA, AYDHEE ANAYA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus TRAYLOR BROTHERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 535
January 10, 2007, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, the surviving family members of a worker killed in an accident on a barge while constructing a bridge in ocean waters, appealed a summary judgment issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in favor of defendant employer in plaintiffs' suit seeking exemplary damages under the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA).
OVERVIEW: After the accident, plaintiffs submitted an application to the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission for survivor benefits and subsequently received a series of benefit checks from the employer's insurer. After plaintiffs' attorney sent a notice of representation to the insurer, the insurer informed plaintiffs that the benefits were paid pursuant to the LHWCA, not the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). Plaintiffs filed a request to receive TWCA benefits, then sued the employer for exemplary damages based on the employer's alleged gross negligence. The insurer filed a dispute with the Commission, which found that plaintiffs did not qualify for TWCA benefits. The district found for the employer. On appeal, the court agreed. Under the status test, the decedent was engaged in maritime employment because he was injured while on actual navigable waters. Thus, plaintiffs were entitled only to benefits under the LHWCA, which, unlike the TWCA, did not permit exemplary damage awards. Additionally, Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 406.091(a)(2) prohibited benefits to workers covered by analogous federal laws. No election of benefits was sanctioned by U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed.
