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