Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid

24 Citing cases

  1. Owensby & Kritikos, Inc. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs

    997 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2021)

    Before Barksdale, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, Circuit Judge: Primarily at issue, in the light of Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid , 565 U.S. 207, 132 S.Ct. 680, 181 L.Ed.2d 675 (2012) (establishing substantial-nexus test), is whether an onshore injury en route to a rig platform on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is recoverable under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. , as extended by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq . When injured, James Boudreaux was employed by Owensby & Kritikos, Inc., as an equipment-testing technician on platforms located on the OCS.

  2. Mays v. Chevron Pipe Line Co.

    968 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2020)   Cited 6 times
    Interpreting statute with "occurring as the result of" to require substantial nexus or significant causal link between defendant's conduct and plaintiff's injury

    Chevron insists they violated the Supreme Court's decision in Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid , which interpreted the federal law extending LHWCA coverage to OCS activities. 565 U.S. 207, 132 S.Ct. 680, 181 L.Ed.2d 675 (2012). Chevron argues that under Valladolid , the jury should have been asked only whether the OCS activities of Mays’ direct employer, Furmanite, caused his death.

  3. Classy Cycles, Inc. v. BP P. L.C. (In re Oil Spill By the Oil Rig "deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf Mexico)

    558 F. Supp. 3d 331 (E.D. La. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Seeid. at 701, 131 S.Ct. 2630 ; see alsoPac. Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid , 565 U.S. 207, 221, 132 S.Ct. 680, 181 L.Ed.2d 675 (2012) (rejecting a "but for" standard under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act because it would lead to absurd consequences). While OPA expanded the right of recovery to a greater number of people than existed under prior law, the Court does not believe that Congress meant it to have virtually no limit.

  4. Mays v. Line

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 14-3098-BAJ-CBW (W.D. La. Jun. 17, 2019)

    RULING AND ORDERBefore the Court are Chevron's Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law or New Trial (Docs. 233, 234) concerning the application of Pac. Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, 565 U.S. 207 (2012), and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. § 1333(b), to James Mays's death. Section 1333(b) of the OCSLA extends the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. § 901, to injuries "occurring as the result of operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf[.

  5. Nero v. Uphold HQ Inc.

    688 F. Supp. 3d 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

    The Supreme Court approved the "substantial nexus" test when it construed the statutory term "as the result of" in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"). See Pac. Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, 565 U.S. 207, 132 S.Ct. 680, 181 L.Ed.2d 675 (2012). The OCSLA extends the federal workers' compensation scheme established in the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., to injuries "occurring as the result of operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf" for the purpose of extracting natural resources from the shelf.

  6. Mays v. Chevron Pipe Line Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 14-03098-BAJ-CBW (W.D. La. Jan. 16, 2019)

    Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of the percentage of time Mays worked offshore or on the OCS. (Doc. 174 at 2). In Plaintiffs' view, that evidence is irrelevant because the substantial-nexus test from Pac. Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, 565 U.S. 207 (2012), focuses on the link between Mays's injury and Chevron's on-OCS extractive operations—not between Mays's employment and the OCS. (Id.). Chevron disagrees and cites Baker v. Dir., Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 834 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2016), to support its argument.

  7. Mays v. Chevron Pipe Line Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 14-03098-BAJ-CBW (W.D. La. Sep. 14, 2018)

    On September 17, 2015, Defendant moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 29). Defendant argued that it was immune from tort liability as Mays's statutory employer under the LWCL. (Doc. 29-3, p. 1). Plaintiffs opposed the Motion, contending that Defendant was not entitled to the statutory-employer defense because the LHWCA, as extended by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"), 43 U.S.C. § 1333, applied to Mays. (Doc. 39, p. 1). The parties agreed that the statutory-employer issue turned on an interpretation of § 1333(b) of the OCSLA and Pac. Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, 565 U.S. 207 (2012). (Docs.

  8. Georgia v. Public Resource.Org, Inc.

    140 S. Ct. 1498 (2020)   Cited 46 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Referring to Skidmore v. Swift & Co. , 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124

    "Congress' use of explicit language in one provision cautions against inferring the same limitation" elsewhere in the statute. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby , 580 U.S. ––––, ––––, 137 S.Ct. 436, 442, 196 L.Ed.2d 340 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid , 565 U.S. 207, 216, 132 S.Ct. 680, 181 L.Ed.2d 675 (2012). Third, the Act specifically notes that annotations are copyrightable derivative works. § 101.

  9. Paroline v. United States

    572 U.S. 434 (2014)   Cited 662 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that restitution orders under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 are unlawful absent a proximate-cause analysis

    The words “as a result of” plainly suggest causation. See Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, 565 U. S. 207, 221, 132 S. Ct. 680, 181 L. Ed. 2d 675, 692 (2012); see also Burrage v. United States, 571 U. S. 204, 210, 134 S. Ct. 881, 187 L. Ed. 2d 715, 725 (2014). And a straightforward reading of §2259(c) indicates that the term “a crime” refers to the offense of conviction.

  10. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 3,044 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

    The proximate-cause inquiry is not easy to define, and over the years it has taken various forms; but courts have a great deal of experience applying it, and there is a wealth of precedent for them to draw upon in doing so. See Exxon Co., U.S.A. v. Sofec, Inc., 517 U.S. 830, 838-839, 116 S. Ct. 1813, 135 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1996); Pac. Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, 565 U.S. 207, 224-225, 132 S. Ct. 680, 181 L. Ed. 2d 675, 691 (2012) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Proximate-cause analysis is controlled by the nature of the statutory cause of action.