Filed January 15, 2015
In Northeast Marine, the Court held that a statute created to cover injuries from new technologies also covered a worker injured from an antiquated technology finding that Congress’ intent was also to create a “uniform compensation system.” 432 U.S. at 271-72. As noted in Respondent’s brief, the New York EAJA was adopted at a time when the catalyst theory was an accepted feature of the Federal EAJA.
Filed April 28, 2017
AND TOTE MARITIME ALASKA, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B) ESTATE OF JAMES V. GENERAL DYNAMICS, ET AL., Case No. 3:17-CV- Page 12 of 18 G A R V E Y S C H U B E R T B A R E R E ig h te en th F lo o r 1 1 9 1 S ec o n d A ve n u e S ea tt le , W a sh in g to n 9 8 1 0 1 -2 9 3 9 (2 0 6 ) 4 6 4 -3 9 3 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to cover those workers on the situs who are involved in the essential elements of loading and unloading; it is ‘clear that persons who are on the situs but not engaged in the overall process of loading or unloading vessels are not covered’”) (emphasis added) (quoting Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 267 (1977)). There is nothing particularly maritime about loading a military vehicle onto a railcar on land, regardless of the fact that it was one time transported by a ship.
Filed January 31, 2017
Mr. Weaver is similar to the plaintiff, Ralph Caputo, who was part of the stevedoring gang at a marine terminal. Northeast Marine Terminal Co., Inc. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, (1977). The U.S. Supreme court has held that a worker cannot be a longshoreman and also a Jones Act Seaman.