Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid

​The constitutional issue is workers compensation law based off of The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C., §§ 1331-1356 (OCSLA). So the question that is basically presented is that person:

(1) always eligible for compensation, because his employer's operations on 
the shelf are the but for cause of his injury (as the Third Circuit holds); or

(2) never eligible for compensation, because the Act applies only to injuries 
occurring on the shelf (as the Fifth Circuit holds); 

(3) sometimes eligible for compensation, because eligibility for benefits 
depends on the nature and extent of the factual relationship between the injury and 
the operations on the shelf (as the Ninth Circuit holds)

Essentially what had happened was a man was crushed in a forklift accident. The widowed wife is seeking workers compensation under the OCSLA act. The problem with the OCSLA act is it only covers accidents that happens on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This accident happened at an on shore location. The counter arguement to that is that the worker spent 98% of his time on the OCS, however the accident still ahppened on land. OCSLA doesn't cover land accidents because that has its own workers compensation solution.

In the case the Pacific Operations attorney had some key points and highlighting key components of the case. He emphasized the wording of the OCSLA workers compensation act which states that the accident was to happened on the OCS. The rest of the speakers basically try to dump off the compensation to different acts.

My opinion is, this case shouldn't be a case. OCSLA is pretty clear and simple. However the way that all the Justice are handling it, it makes it seem like Pacific Operations will lose. They seem to be over-sensitive and they just shoot down what the speakers say by bringing up irrelevant points.OCS_2006_MMS