Richard Epstein On SCOTUS Blog
Over at SCOTUS blog, Richard Epstein discusses Pacfic Operators Offshore LLP v. Valladolid, which will be argued at the Supreme Court on October 11, 2011.
At issue are the coverage provisions for workers’ compensation benefits under one of many overlapping schemes that are dedicated to that issue. In this instance the relevant statute is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The continental shelf is that area within United States territorial waters that lies at least three miles from the United States coastline.
The operative provision of this statute provides that it applies to cases of death or disability “resulting from any injury occurring as the result of operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing, or transporting by pipeline the natural resources, or involving rights to the natural resources, of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf.” The question before the Court is how broadly the words “occurring as the result of operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf” in connection with these injuries should be read.
Professor Epstein deals with the tangle of precedents that only a lawyer could love and concludes that the Supreme Court won't, and shouldn't, give a broad construction to these words.
- Comment (2)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Richard Epstein On SCOTUS Blog
OK, so: In an effort to protect an oil rig, one of the workers hooks a great white shark outside the three mile territorial-waters zone. The worker then drives the fish to shallower water to kill it -- you know, like in the movie. His injury occurs when removing the hook while he's standing on the beach, but the shark is still in the water (not all of it -- the head isn't, but most of the body is).
Would he be covered?
(Have a good weekend, Diane.)
Re: Richard Epstein On SCOTUS Blog
Scott Reusser: OK, so: In an effort to protect an oil rig, one of the workers hooks a great white shark outside the three mile territorial-waters zone. The worker then drives the fish to shallower water to kill it -- you know, like in the movie. His injury occurs when removing the hook while he's standing on the beach, but the shark is still in the water (not all of it -- the head isn't, but most of the body is).
Would he be covered?
(Have a good weekend, Diane.) · Sep 30 at 4:58pm
He would not be covered under Mills. But he would be covered under Curtis as well as under Valladolid.
You have a good weekend too, Scott.