Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Morgan

Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Morgan, 551 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1977)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1977-04-20
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that a worker who died when a steel plate he was cleaning fell on him because the “cleaning task was an essential step of the shipbuilding process”
  • holding that a worker who died when a steel plate he was cleaning fell on him satisfied the status test because the “cleaning task was an essential step of the shipbuilding process”
  • holding that a worker who died when a steel plate he was cleaning fell on him satisfied the status test because the task he was performing “was an essential step of the shipbuilding process”
  • holding that a worker who died when a steel plate he was cleaning fell on him satisfied the status test because the “cleaning task was an essential 22 R. Doc. 101-6 at 30:10-31:5 (Deposition Testimony of Leon Wallis, Holmes v. Bossier, No. 18-8518 (E.D. La. 2020)
  • cleaning was “necessary prerequisite to the fabrication of the steel” and thus was “an essential step of the shipbuilding process”
  • employee killed while cleaning a steel plate that would later be used for construction or repair of ships
  • deceased claimant covered while cleaning a steel plate that would later be used for construction or repair of ships
  • injured while cleaning a piece of steel to prepare it for fabrication into a shipbuilding component

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Morgan. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
26 opinions
Distinguished
1 times
INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORP., ETC. v. MORGAN,551 F.2d 61(5th Cir. 1977)
INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, DIVISION OF LITTON SYSTEMS, INC.,
PETITIONER, v. DOROTHY T. MORGAN, ERNEST W. MORGAN, JR., TIMOTHY E. MORGAN,
CLAIMANTS-RESPONDENTS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, RESPONDENTS.
No. 76-1880.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 20, 1977.
Eldon L. Bolton, Jr., Gulfport, Miss., D. Knox White, George E. Morse, George W. Williams, Jr., Senior Staff Atty., Pascagoula, Miss., Charles E. Foster, Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioner.

Bobby G. O'Barr, Biloxi, Miss., Laurie M. Streeter, Associate Sol., William J. Kilberg, Sol., Linda L. Carroll, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for claimants-respondents.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board (Mississippi Case).
Before MORGAN and RONEY, Circuit Judges, and KINGfn*, District Judge.Page 62
PER CURIAM:
[1] Petitioner Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation appeals from a decision of the Benefits Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor, affirming an award of benefits to respondents under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act,33 U.S.C. §§ 901et seq. Respondents' decedent, Ernest W. Morgan, worked as a ship fitter helper apprentice in a fabrication shop in the Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss. Workers in the shop cut, shape, tack and weld steel parts later used for construction and repair of ships. Morgan died when a steel plate he was cleaning fell on him.

[2] Ingalls questions whether, under the terms of the Act, Morgan was a covered employee,33 U.S.C. § 902(3), working on a maritime situs,33 U.S.C. § 903(a). If he was, Ingalls suggests the Act is unconstitutional. These issues are controlled byHalter MarineFabricators Inc. v. Nulty, decided with Jacksonville ShipyardsInc. v. Perdue,539 F.2d 533(5th Cir. 1976),petition forcert. filed45 U.S.L.W. 3514 (Jan. 25, 1977).Nultyupheld an award of compensation benefits to a worker in a shipyard fabrication shop and determined the Act so applied was constitutional. Nulty was covered, the Court held, because he was "directly involved in an ongoing shipbuilding operation."539 F.2d at 544.

[3] Ingalls suggests three possible reasons for distinguishing the status of Morgan from the status of Nulty. First, at the time of his injury, Morgan was only cleaning, while Nulty was constructing. Because cleaning was a necessary prerequisite to the fabrication of the steel for use in shipbuilding, this distinction is immaterial. Second, Morgan was working on a steel plate for a ship that had not yet been launched, while Nulty was fabricating a piece of woodwork for a floating vessel. The work of shipbuilding, however, commences before there is a launched vessel. Third, Morgan never worked on board a ship, while Nulty did from time to time. Shipbuilders who do the initial work to construct a vessel for launching are, nonetheless, just as engaged in shipbuilding as those who are completing the task after something is finished which can be called a ship.

[4] Morgan's cleaning task was an essential step of the shipbuilding process, and it defies plain meaning of the words "ongoing shipbuilding operation" to restrict them to activities that relate to vessels that are already floating. Ingalls argues that the "ongoing shipbuilding" test is wrong if it eliminates any requirement that the status of the injured employee be judged without regard for traditional maritime concepts.Nulty,however, holds that shipbuilders perform a maritime function.

[5] AFFIRMED.
  1. District Judge of the Southern District of Florida sitting by designation. ↩