Pickett v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________

m 00-60795
_______________

MARGIE A. PICKETT
(WIDOW OF JOSEPH PICKETT),

Petitioner,

VERSUS

PETROLEUM HELICOPTERS, INC.;
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, A MUTUAL COMPANY;
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

_________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Benefits Review Board
_________________________
September 28, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and DeMOSS, and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act
Circuit Judges. (“LHWCA”), as adopted in the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), 43
PER CURIAM: U.S.C. § 1333(b). We affirm.

Margie Pickett appeals a decision of the I.
Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) that she does Joseph Pickett was a helicopter pilot for
not qualify for death benefits regarding her late Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., performing
husband, Joseph Pickett, under the Longshore contract services for Amerada Hess
Corporation. He ferried workers and therefore should control. We disagree. The
equipment between land and offshore relevant language in Mills is not fact-specific,
platforms. He was killed when his helicopter but categorically requires the injury to occur
crashed over land during a test flight.1 on the OCS. In fact, the court discussed the
two cases on which Margie Pickett relies:
Margie Pickett filed for benefits under the
OCSLA. An administrative law judge ruled The Director argues that we
Pickett ineligible under OCSLA because his imposed no situs requirement for
death did not occur over the Outer Continental § 1333(b) coverage in Barger v.
Shelf (“OCS”) and thus did not satisfy this Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 692 F.2d
court’s situs requirement for OCSLA benefits.2 337 (5th Cir. 1982), and Stansbury v.
Margie Pickett appealed to the BRB, which Sikorski Aircraft, 681 F.2d 948 (5th Cir.
affirmed. [1982]) . . . . The Director’s reliance on
those cases is misplaced.
II.
Margie Pickett concedes that the death did Barger and Stansbury held that
not occur over the OCS but argues that the § 1333(b) extended the LHWCA as the
plain language of OCSLA is inconsistent with sole remedy for survivors suing the em-
this court’s situs requirement. Whatever the ployers of individuals who (1) satisfied
merits of Pickett’s statutory argument, the “but for” status test; and (2) died in
however, we are bound by Mills v. Director, helicopter crashes on the high seas
OWCP, 877 F.2d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 1989) (en above the OCS. Although some of the
banc), which allows OCSLA coverage only for dicta in those opinions may be overly
employees who “(1) suffer injury or death on broad, we have no quarrel with those
an OCS platform or the waters above the holdings to the extent they grant
OCS; and (2) satisfy the ‘but for’ status test LHWCA benefits to oilfield workers in-
this court described in Herb’s Welding, Inc. v. jured on waters above the OCS. We do
Gray, 766 F.2d 898, 900 (5th Cir. 1985).” not interpret those cases to read
Accord Sisson v. Davis & Sons, 131 F.3d 555, § 1333(b) as extending LHWCA
558 (5th Cir. 1998). benefits to oilfield workers injured on
land or state territorial waters. But cf.
Margie Pickettt argues that Mills is Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore
factually distinct and that our earlier decisions Service, Inc., 849 F.2d 805 (3d Cir.
1988) (Section 1333(b) covers OCS
platform worker injured in car accident
1
on New Jersey Garden State Parkway
If the flight test had been successful, the heli- while driving to meet helicopter that
copter would have landed, boarded passengers, and
would have flown him to rig).
ferried the passengers to oil platforms on the OCS.
2
Pickett also sought benefits under the Mills, 877 F.2d at 361-62. Contrary to
LHWCA. The administrative law judge Margie Pickett’s suggestion, Mills plainly
foundSSand Margie Pickett does not disputeSSthat requires satisfaction of the situs test, even as
her husband failed to meet the status requirement to helicopter crashes.
of the act.

2
 Moreover, Margie Pickett’s second
contentionSSthat we should follow Curtis
because “the Court’s opinion in Mills . . . did
not disagree with Curtis”SSis unpersuasive.
Mills referenced Curtis only as “authority
[that] cites a proposition analogous to the
contrary of the main proposition.” THE
BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION
R. 1.2(c), at 23 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n
et al. eds., 17th ed. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

3