Riverboat Casino Dealer Seeks Recovery Under Jones Act
Click Link to Access Free PDF Download
“5-Step Sequence to Coordinate Return-to-Work with ADA Compliance”
Here’s what happened.
A dealer on a riverboat casino filed a Jones Act claim against the riverboat owner/operator, contending that she sustained repeated flea bites while working on defendant’s gambling casino riverboat, that she was required to take large doses of steroids for the flea bites, and that the steroids caused her to suffer a heart attack. At issue was whether the riverboat casino was a “vessel in navigation” for purposes of the Jones Act. The dealer contended that the riverboat casino was, in fact, a vessel in navigation, pointing out that it was registered with and regularly inspected by the United States Coast Guard, and had its own engines and machinery, as well as navigation, life-saving, and fire-fighting equipment. The employer contended that the riverboat was not a qualifying vessel in as much as since August 2002, the casino began exclusively conducting dockside gambling pursuant to amendments to Indiana state law that allowed casinos to stop cruising and conduct gaming while in a stationary position.
Was the riverboat casino a “vessel in navigation” for purposes of the Jones Act?
In RDI/Caesars Riverboat Casino, Inc. v. Conder, 896 N.E.2d 1172, 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 2542 (November 25, 2008), the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a decision by the trial court that had granted the dealer’s partial summary judgment on the Jones Act jurisdictional issue. Observing that since 2002, the riverboat had been moored and stationary–with the exception of rare tests conducted in compliance with federal regulations–that it was connected to the dock by eight mooring lines, two double-up lines, three fuel hoses, a sewage and water hose, and seven power cables, and that a majority of decisions on the issue had refused to grant vessel in navigation status to moored riverboats, the court held that the riverboat casino was not a vessel in navigation, that while it was theoretically capable of being in navigation, the actual intention had been to remove the boat from navigation, except in emergency situations.
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 146.02.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Tom Robinson, J.D. is the primary upkeep writer for Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis) and Larson’s Workers’ Compensation, Desk Edition (LexisNexis). He is a contributing writer for California Compensation Cases (LexisNexis) and Benefits Review Board – Longshore Reporter(LexisNexis), and is a contributing author to New York Workers’ Compensation Handbook(LexisNexis). Attorney Robinson is an authority in the area of workers’ compensation and we are happy to have him as a Guest Contributor to Workers’ Comp Kit Blog. Tom can be reached at: compwriter@gmail.com.
http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/Workers-Compensation
_____________________________________________________________________________
WC Cost Calculator to show the REAL COST of workers www.ReduceYourWorkersComp.com/calculator.php
WC 101 for the basics about workers comp. www.ReduceYourWorkersComp.com/workers_comp.php
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws are different. Consult with your corporate legal counsel before implementing any cost containment programs.
©2008 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
