Oil & Gas Clean-Up Not "Capped"

The Jones Act is a federal statute which enables maritime workers that are considered “seaman” to sue their employers for any injuries sustained while on the job. Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, L.L.C., No, 19-20506, ____F.3d____, (2021). Because Congress never defined the term, courts have struggled to determine which maritime workers are “seaman.” The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is no stranger to this struggle. The Supreme Court in Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 368 (1995) established a two factor test to determine seaman status. The first prong asked whether the plaintiff’s work contributed to the function of a vessel or fleet of vessels. The worker in Sanchez satisfied this first prong. The “second prong” asked whether a worker has a connection to a vessel or fleet of vessels that is substantial in terms of duration and nature. The recent decision in Sanchez helps to gauge when a worker’s connection to a vessel will be regarded as substantial in its nature.

Gabriel Sanchez was employed by Smart Fabricators of Texas, LLC (“SmartFab”) as a land-based welder. Sanchez worked for SmartFab on two jack-up barges owned by SmartFab’s customer, Enterprise Offshore Drilling LLC. On August 8, 2018, while working on the deck of one of the jack-up barges, Sanchez fell and sustained injuries. He filed suit in state court. SmartFab removed the case to federal court.

Sanchez moved to remand the suit to state court, citing to his seaman status under the Jones Act. The district court denied Sanchez’s motion to remand. It also granted SmartFab’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Sanchez was not a seaman and thus was not covered under the Jones Act. On appeal, a Fifth Circuit panel initially held that Sanchez satisfied the requirements of the seaman status test. In an en banc opinion, this analysis was called into question.

The full Fifth Circuit explored a trilogy of Supreme Court’s cases it found “enormously helpful” in giving meaning to the term seaman: (1) McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991), (2) Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, and (3) Harbor Tug and Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548 (1997). After reviewing these cases, the Fifth Circuit concluded that simply asking whether a worker is exposed to the “perils of the sea” is not enough to resolve the nature element. Under Sanchez, courts must also consider the following:

(1) Does the worker owe his allegiance to the vessel, rather than simply to a shoreside employer;

(2) Is the work sea-based or involve seagoing activity; and

(3) (a) is the worker’s assignment to a vessel limited to performance of a discrete task after which the worker’s connection to the vessel ends, or

(3) (b) does the worker’s assignment include sailing with the vessel from port to port or location to location?

The established facts in Sanchez showed that the plaintiff’s work was not sea-based. He had no permanent connection to any vessel. Much of his work involved activities when the rig was “jacked-up” and therefore not in navigation. Following its redefined analysis, Sanchez held that seaman status was not present because the nature of the plaintiff’s work did not reflect a substantial connection to a vessel.

Louisiana's long relationship with oil and gas has been profitable for both the oil and gas industry and Louisiana's citizens. However, the nature and extent of the duty to restore the land after drilling has often been a disputed and litigated issue. Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in State v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 2012-0884 (La. 1/30/13), - So.3d - added clarity to the law by establishing that the presence of a Court-approved remediation plan does not create a "cap" on damages.

The Louisiana Legislature passed La. R.S. 30:29 to provide a procedure for the clean-up, or "remediation," of oilfield, exploration and production sites. Before this statute, a plaintiff who was awarded monetary "remediation" damages to restore land was not obligated to actually use the money to perform remediation work. The purpose of La. R.S. 30:29 was to ensure that any money awarded to remediate polluted sites be used for this purpose. By the statute, any such award is to be deposited with the Court and spent under a Court-approved plan.

Even after the statute, it remained unclear whether a Court's approval of a remediation plan created a "damages cap" whereby the plaintiff landowner could not recover in excess of the plan. This issue was resolved in State v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co.

The suit involved the State's action for remediation of land owned by the State and managed by the Vermilion Parish School Board. The property was allegedly polluted by oil and gas exploration performed pursuant to a mineral lease. Consistent with recovery allowed in earlier cases, the State sought to recover damages in excess of the remediation costs. Attorneys for one of the defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment and argued that, under La. R.S. 30:29, the plaintiffs did not have a right to seek damages in excess of the amount necessary to complete the Court's remediation plan

The trial court held the plaintiffs could only recover damages equal to the amount listed in the Court's remediation plan. The appellate court overturned the trial court's decision and held that the landowner could recover damages in excess of the Court's plan, whether those damages are based on a contract or tort law. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision and confirmed that there is no "cap" on damages.

Before and after State v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., an award for damages in excess of the remediation plan is available and arises from a private right in either contract or tort law. Contract damages are permitted if they are expressly provided by the contract. If contract damages are not available, tort damages may be recovered if the plaintiff shows that the defendant acted unreasonably or excessively in its exploration of gas, oil or minerals. See Terrebonne Parish School Bd. v. Castex Energy, Inc., 2004-0968, p. 10 (La. 1/9/05), 893 So.2d 789.

In view of the State v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co. decision, oil and gas companies should be aware that they face exposure in excess of the statutory remediation plan, making them potentially liable for far more than just clean-up.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1464 allows a defendant to select a physician to perform a physical and/or mental examination of a plaintiff to challenge the plaintiff’s claimed physical and mental injuries. This is called an Additional Medical Opinion (AMO); this was previously referenced as an Independent Medical Examination (IME). Earlier this year, the Louisiana Supreme Court, outlined the “good cause” requirement of the statute—an essential element required to proceed with an AMO. But, what remained as a question was the scope of an AMO and which party had the burden to deal with requested restrictions on the physician’s medical exam. This question was answered: In Augustine v. Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that after “good cause” has been shown for the examination, the party seeking to limit the scope of the AMO bears the burden to justify the restrictions.

In Augustine, a sequel to Hicks v. USAA General Indemnity Company, Et al, the Court held that if the party to be examined for the AMO, usually the plaintiff, wants to place limits upon the examination, that party then has the burden of proof to justify the need for any restrictions or limitations with competent evidence. This ruling appears to show a trend in which the Court is confirming a defendant’s ability to obtain an AMO to support its defenses to a personal injury claim. Augustine follows another Supreme Court decision from March of 2022, in which the Court held that a party establishes “good cause” for an AMO if that party shows a “reasonable nexus” between the requested examination and the condition in controversy. See Hicks v. USAA General Indemnity Company, Et al. The Hicks decision eased the hurdles that defendants faced when seeking to compel AMOs pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1464. For more information on the Hicks decision, see our prior blog here. Supreme Court Clarifies “Good Cause” for Additional Medical Opinion (“AMO”) (keoghcox.com)

In Augustine, the defendants requested an AMO. The plaintiff agreed to the examination, but the parties were unable to agree on “certain restrictions” the plaintiff sought to impose on the scope of the examination. The defendants ultimately filed a Motion to Compel regarding this issue. The District Court limited the examination to only those tests that the plaintiff’s treating physicians had performed. The District Court also noted that it did not want the AMO to turn into a “fishing expedition.” The Court of Appeal denied the defendant’s request for review of the Trial Court’s decision. The defendants then sought relief from the Supreme Court, which vacated the Trial Court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court set forth the burden of proof each party has in the context of a Motion to Compel an AMO. As outlined in Hicks, the party requesting the AMO initially has the burden to establish “good cause” for the AMO. Importantly, the Augustine court found that once “good cause” has been found, “the court should presume that the examination will be conducted in a reasonable manner.” Because it is presumed the examination will be conducted reasonably, if a party opposing the AMO wants to place restrictions on the examination, the burden now shifts to that party to establish “special circumstances” that justify the restrictions they request. To meet this burden, the opposing party must produce “competent evidence” to establish (1) the need for the restriction and (2) that harm that will result if the restrictions are not imposed. The type of evidence that may support AMO restrictions under Augustine likely will vary depending on the unique facts of each case. However, Hicks and its “sequel,” Augustine, provide clarification and guidance to parties seeking to compel or limit an AMO under article 1464.

Case References:

Augustine v. Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon, 2021-01753 (La. 10/1/22), __ So.3d __.

Hicks v. USAA General Indemnity Company, Et al., 2021-00840 (La. 3/25/22), 339 So.3d 1106.

Written by Chad A. Sullivan and George A. Wright