Advanced Technology from U.S. Military will soon find its way into Commercial Diving Operations

The United State Navy has developed the Divers Augmented Vision Display, which is a high-resolution, heads-up display installed directly into a diver’s helmet.  The system will allow the diver to access sonar, text messages, diagrams, and photographs. Significantly, the display will allow for augmented reality videos; technology that allows images and video to be superimposed in real time (think the “monocle” mode in your Yelp app).

 

This technology will assist divers in recovery and salvage operations by offering real-time positional awareness.  The Naval Sea Systems Command is also working on development of enhanced video systems that will increase diver sight in near zero visibility situations.  Like so many other advancements before, it is only a matter of time before these technologies make their way into commercial diving operations.

Implementation and Concerns Pertaining to the IMO’s Verified Gross Mass Regulations

The International Maritime Organization’s (“IMO”) amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention will become legally binding on July 1, 2016.  The changes to SOLAS require exporters to verify the weight of the containers before they are received at the port and loaded aboard the ship.

 

The rules provide two methods for a shipper may obtain the verified gross mass (VGM):

  • Method 1, upon the conclusion of packing and sealing a container, the shipper may weigh, or have arranged that a third party weigh, the packed container.
  • Method 2, the shipper or, by arrangement of the shipper, a third party may weigh all packages and cargo items, including the mass of pallets, dunnage and other packing and securing material to be packed in the container, and add the tare mass of the container to the sum of the single masses of the container’s contents.

 

The new rules have raised numerous concerns, some of which include:

  • Whether there is an agreed format to communicate the verified gross mass;
  • Whether there is a deadline for when the information must be received by the carrier and the terminal operator;
  • Whether the rules obligate the carrier to check the values given by the shipper; and,
  • Whether there is an acceptable margin of error when establishing the verified gross mass.

 

Although there are many more concerns, there is no doubt that additional unforeseen issues may arise once the requirements are put into practice.

 

http://www.aaei.org/resources/new-solas-regulations-and-resources/

Plaintiff’s Construction Defect Claims Against Offshore Spar Manufacturer Dismissed

In June 2011, an offshore worker was injured on a spar (a floating platform shaped like a giant buoy) on the outer continental shelf when he was struck in the face with the flange of a valve.  He filed a personal injury lawsuit against the manufacturer of the spar, McDermott, Inc., alleging his injury was caused by defective design and construction of the spar.

 

McDermott filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s right of action was perempted under Louisiana law.  McDermott asserted that because plaintiff was covered by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the law of the adjacent state (Louisiana) applied as a surrogate to federal law.  McDermott then pointed to a Louisiana statute, La. R.S. 9:2772, which provides a five year peremptive period in which to bring an action arising out of deficiencies in the design or construction of immovable property.  Because McDermott delivered the finished spar to its customer (plaintiff’s employer) in 2004, plaintiff’s design defect claim filed in 2013, was time barred.  The District Court agreed with McDermott and dismissed plaintiff’s claims.  Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

On appeal, plaintiff argued that La. R.S. 9:2772 did not apply to his claim because the spar was not an immovable, which was a matter of first impression for the Court.  The Fifth Circuit had previously determined that a spar is not a vessel for purposes of the Jones Act, but no court had ever addressed whether a spar is immovable property under Louisiana law.  The Court noted that fixed platforms are considered immovable property.  The Court further noted that the spar in question was permanently moored to the ocean floor, was intended to remain in its location for its twenty year life, and it would take months of planning to move the spar.  The Fifth Circuit concluded that enough similarities exist between a spar and fixed platform that a spar is immovable property under Louisiana law.  Thus, plaintiff’s design defect claims were dismissed as time barred by state law.

 

Hefren v. McDermott, Inc.

Fifth Circuit Holds “Zone of Danger” Test Not Applicable Under the LHWCA

In a recent unpublished opinion, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s award of benefits to a longshoreman who sustained work-related psychological injuries.  Claimant was operating a forklift when he accidentally struck and killed his co-worker.  Although Claimant was not physically injured, he attempted to assist the deceased co-worker by untangling her from under the forklift. During the entire time that first responders were attempting to save the co-worker, Claimant stood ten to fifteen feet away with a clear view of her.  Claimant spent the rest of the day reporting what he saw to multiple state and federal law enforcement agencies.

 

Claimant was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety; he was also being monitored for suicide.  Both Claimant’s treating physicians as well as the Employer’s Second Medical Opinion physician opined that Claimant was disabled from returning to work.  However, the SMO physician opined that Claimant was under-medicated, and Employer requested a Department of Labor (“DOL”) Independent Medical Examination (“IME”). The DOL IME physician opined that Claimant did not suffer from PTSD because Claimant did not experience a threat himself and was never in danger during the accident.  Further, the DOL IME opined that Claimant demonstrated significant evidence of malingering.   Based on this report, Employer terminated indemnity and medical benefits, and Claimant filed a claim.

 

Employer disputed the claim, arguing that Claimant was not entitled to compensation under the LHWCA for a psychological injury because he did not sustain a physical injury or was not placed in immediate risk of physical injury, i.e., Claimant was not in the “zone of danger” set forth in Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994).  Employer further contended that the DOL IME’s opinion that Claimant did not suffer from PTSD was dispositive.

 

The Fifth Circuit (in affirming the ALJ and the BRB) held that the “zone of danger” test was a tort concept inapplicable to the LHWCA.  Further, Section 2(2) defining “injury” did not distinguish between physical and psychological injuries. Nowhere in the statute was there a requirement that physical injury accompany a psychological injury.  The Fifth Circuit further affirmed the ALJ’s findings that the DOL IME physician’s report was to be given little weight.  In examining the plain language of Section 7(e), the court held nothing in the LHWCA required an ALJ to adopt a DOL IME physician’s opinion as binding.  The ALJ’s finding that the numerous other doctors who diagnosed PTSD and disabled Claimant was supported by substantial evidence.

 

Ceres Marine Terminal Inc. v. Director, OWCP