Maine’s highest court ruled that an offshore aquaculture worker did not qualify as a seaman covered by the Jones Act.
Case: Potter v. Great Falls Insurance Co., No. WCB-19-456, 12/29/2020, published.
Facts: Darla Potter worked as a marine technician for Cooke Aquaculture USA Inc. at an offshore salmon farming operation. Her primary job was to care for the fish, which were raised in cages located less than one mile offshore.
Potter’s duties consisted of tending, feeding and harvesting the fish, as well as cleaning, maintaining and repairing the pens and nets. The job was physically demanding, requiring her to tend salmon cages that were 300 feet in circumference and to stand for hours on pipes that bobbed up and down in the ocean.
To feed the salmon, Potter occasionally spent time on a feed barge, which a large box anchored to the ocean floor. The barge had no means of self-propulsion or running lights for navigation, and a towboat was required to move it.
To reach the cages, Potter traveled by either the large motorized barge or skiff. The ride took approximately 30 minutes in each direction. While aboard the transportation vessels, Potter was a crew member engaged in activities associated with seamanship.
Potter typically worked between eight and nine hours a day, and 75% of her workday was spent undertaking duties associated with the salmon cages.
In November 2015, Potter slipped on a pipe connected to the salmon cages and injured her knee. She continued to work until January 2017. By that time, the condition of her knee had worsened to the point she could no longer work on the salmon cages, and she was assigned to an onshore job.
Procedural history: Potter filed a workers’ compensation claim, asserting she had suffered a sudden knee injury in November 2015 and a gradual knee injury in January 2017.
Cooke had workers’ compensation insurance with the Great Falls Insurance Co., and which contested Potter’s claim. It contended that Potter was a seaman pursuant to the Jones Act and was not entitled to benefits under the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act.
An administrative law judge was not persuaded, finding the salmon cages were not vessels for purposes of the Jones Act, and that Potter spent less than 30% of her working hours in the service of a vessel.
The Workers’ Compensation Board Appellate Division affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion.
Analysis: The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine said the question of whether a worker is a seaman as the term is used in the Jones Act is a "mixed question of law and fact."
The court said its precedent has stated that a determination of whether a worker is covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act or a federal statute is subject to independent review, and it explained that the process is not without any deference to the factual findings of the board or ALJ.
The court said it would defer to the reasonable construction of statutes in the Workers’ Compensation Act that the board administers, but it would decide other legal issues without such deference.
In the workers’ compensation context, the court added, it is statutorily required to accept an ALJ’s factual findings as final, except in cases of fraud.
Thus, the court said, the question of whether a worker is a seaman within the meaning of the Jones Act is decided with deference to an ALJ’s factual findings, but without deference to the application of federal law by the ALJ or board.
The court said that the federal common-law test for determining seaman status requires that an employee’s duties contribute to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission and that the seaman has a connection to a vessel that is substantial in its duration and nature.
The general rule is that an employee who spends less than 30% of her time on or in service of a vessel in navigation does not qualify as a seaman, the court added.
“Here, the ALJ found, and the record reflects, that Potter spent less than 30% of her time on the transportation vessels,” the court noted. “On this record, and with the limited scope of our review, we cannot disturb the ALJ’s findings to add any of the time Potter spent on the feed barge or salmon cages to the calculation of time spent on a Jones Act vessel.”
The court said it could not adjust the ALJ’s finding upward to climb past 30% because any additional time related to occupying or serving a vessel was not quantified in the record, and it could not disturb the ALJ’s finding of fact on the issue.
Additionally, the court reasoned, a worker on a non-vessel platform in the water is not engaged in a traditional sea-centric occupation.
“Just as one might drill for oil on land or on the sea, so also can the activity in which Potter was engaged – fish farming – be accomplished on land as well as on the sea,” the court said.
The court acknowledged that “there may be situations in which an aquaculture worker might be deemed a seaman,” but under the facts of the case, the court said Potter did not qualify.
Disposition: Affirmed.
To read the court’s decision, click here.
