Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Questions Test for Seaman's Status

In a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the court questioned its precedent for determining if an individual qualifies as a seaman. The case, Gilbert Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, LLC, involved a welder, Gilbert Sanchez, who was hired by Smart Fabricators of Texas, LLC. During his employment, Sanchez worked 61 out of 67 days aboard two jack-up drilling rigs. He spent most of those days on a jack-up rig next to an inland pier. While aboard one of these rigs, Sanchez sustained injury. He filed suit against SmartFab in state court under the Jones Act. SmartFab then removed the case to federal court in the Southern District of Texas and sought summary judgment on the basis that Sanchez was not a seaman. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of SmartFab. The court held that Sanchez was not a seaman as he could not prove his connection to a vessel was substantial in nature.

On appeal, Judge Eugene Davis applied the Supreme Court’s two-prong test for determining seaman status set forth in Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis. For an individual to qualify as a seaman under this test, his duties must:

• Contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission
• Have a connection to a vessel in navigation that is substantial in terms of both duration and nature

Here, the question was whether Sanchez’s duties were substantial in nature. The district court held that Sanchez’s work on vessels did not expose him to the perils of the sea such that he was not a seaman. But the 5th Circuit stated that its precedent established in both In re Endeavor Marine, Inc. and Naquin v. Elevating Boats, LLC clearly sets forth that a worker exposed to the perils of the sea is a seaman, even if the vessel is docked or anchored at a pier. The 5th Circuit reversed the district court’s holding. It held that Sanchez was a seaman despite the fact that most of his work was aboard a drilling rig jacked up above the water and next to a pier.

But in the concurring opinion, Judge Davis, joined by Judges Edith Jones and Don Willet, agreed that while the 5th Circuit was bound by its precedent, the panel indicated that such precedent did not apply the Supreme Court’s authority correctly. Judge Davis stated that Sanchez was not a seaman. Since Sanchez was a land-based welder whose duties did not take him to sea, he was never exposed to the perils of the sea. As a result, Judge Davis urged the court to rehear the case en banc to bring its jurisprudence in line with the Supreme Court’s case law.

This case is significant because we expect the Jones Act employer to seek an application for rehearing en banc. This may lead to a substantive change in the application of seaman status in the Gulf Coast and marine and energy industry.

We will continue to monitor this case and provide updates. Please contact any member of Phelps’ Marine and Energy team if you have questions or need compliance advice and guidance.