New case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding maritime status to afford protections under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act.  It is unpublished, and therefore of limited precedential value, but it does highlight the applicable test for Longshore Act applicability.  The case is Sea-Logix, LLC v. Booker, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9517, and the original opinion can be found here.

The facts are hard to discern but basically a truck driver transporting cargo in and around the Oakland marine terminal was injured.  The employer argued that the truck driver was not entitled to Longshore protection because his job was not sufficiently maritime.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on appeal from the Department of Labor’s Benefits Review Board, set forth the test for maritime status:

Specifically, he must “engage[] in intermediate steps of moving cargo between ship and land transportation.” P.C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford, 444 U.S. 69, 83 (1979). The test focuses on loading and unloading of cargo because Congress anticipated that some land-only workers would receive benefits under the Act. Id. at 80. Regular performance of some maritime duties is sufficient for status even if the duties are not a substantial portion of the claimant’s work. See Schwabenland v. Singer Boats, 683 F.2d 309, 312 (9th Cir. 1982). We affirm as reasonable the Board’s determination that three of Booker’s regularly performed job duties entitle him to Longshore Act status. Cf. Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 262-63 (1977); Pfeiffer, 444 U.S. at 83.