Harry Hurston v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs McGray Construction Company Beaver Insurance Company

989 F.2d 1547 1993 A.M.C. 2477 , 61 USLW 2607 Harry HURSTON, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; McGray Construction Company; Beaver Insurance Company, Respondents. No. 91-70528. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 1993. Decided April 1, 1993. John R. Hillsman, McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner. Marianne Demetral Smith, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, DC, for respondent Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Program. Roger A. Levy, Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi, San Francisco, CA, for respondents McGray Const. Co. and Beaver Ins. Co. Appeal from a Decision of the Benefits Review Board. Before: ALARCON, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. RYMER, Circuit Judge: 1 Harry Hurston petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board decision and order denying him benefits under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 . We must decide whether a structure built on pilings that reaches from land to navigable water is a "pier" which is a covered situs under § 903(a) even though it is not used for a traditional maritime…

Harry Hurston petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board decision and order denying him benefits under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 . We must decide whether a structure built on pilings that reaches from land to navigable water is a “pier” which is a covered situs under § 903(a) even though it is not used for a traditional maritime activity such as the loading or repair of vessels.

We hold that it is. The LHWCA's “status” requirement restricts coverage to only those employees engaged in maritime employment under § 902(3), but its “situs” requirement does not require that any pier adjoining navigable waters of the United States be used as a navigational aid or for boat hook-ups or the like to be covered under § 903(a). Therefore, it is the type of *1548 structure rather than its function which defines “any adjoining pier” under the Act. We have jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C.. § 921(c), and we reverse.- •

I

Hurston- worked as a pile driver on Elwood Pier No. 1 for McGray Construction Company in March, 1985. Elwood Pier No. 1 is a structure built on pilings extending from land to sea in the Santa Barbara channel. Oil is pumped…

dissenting.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

We must decide whether Congress intended to limit recovery under the LHWCA *1554 to employees injured on piers customarily used by an employer for loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel. The majority appears to have concluded that the word “piers,” as used in section 903(a), not only includes a pier used solely for oil production, but also covers piers that support “offices, homes, restaurants, retail outlets, and parking lots.” Majority Opinion at 1553.

I respectfully dissent because the majority’s interpretation of the word “pier” is inconsistent with the intent of Congress as clearly expressed in section 903(a). The majority’s expansive reading of the word “pier” leads to the absurd result that injuries in constructing or repairing a pier that supports an oil production facility or a restaurant are covered pursuant to the LHWCA. We are required by traditional canons of statutory construction to avoid a literal interpretation of a statute that leads to an absurd result or that is contrary to Congress’ constitutional power. See Haggar Co. v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 389, 394 , 60 S.Ct. 337, 339 , 84 L.Ed. 340 (1940) (“A…