Claimant worked for Employer for twenty years when he became aware that his exposure to workplace noise had caused hearing loss. He brought a claim under the Longshore Act. He argued that although he worked as a trackman operating switching engines, he sometimes worked on a track near a shipping channel and was a member of the longshoreman’s union, thus, he was a longshoreman under the Act. Employer controverted the claim on the grounds that Claimant never worked on, over, or adjacent to navigable waters. Employer further argued that switching cars was not integral or necessary to the loading or unloading of a vessel.
The claim was referred to the Office of Administrative Law Judges and the ALJ found that Claimant failed to meet both the situs and status tests. First, the judge cited the Fifth Circuit’s decision in New Orleans Depot in finding that the rail yard did not adjoin navigable waters because it was not bordering on such waters, and the rail yard was not used by Employer for the loading or unloading of a vessel. Further, the judge found that Claimant was not a ship repairman or ship builder, and his work was not an integral or essential part of the loading or unloading process, such that if he failed to perform his duties, the loading process would come to a halt. The claim was denied.
Watson v. Rail Switching Services, Inc. (OALJ 2015)