Smith, et al v. Citgo Petro Corp

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 00-30042
Summary Calendar
_______________
JAMES ALLEN SMITH AND SADIE BREWER SMITH,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(98-CV-1815)
_________________________
July 11, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and
PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Smith sued Citgo Petroleum
Corporation for injuries allegedly suffered in
an accident at a Citgo refinery. The district
court granted summary judgment for Citgo,
concluding that Smith was Citgo’s statutory
employee, so his exclusive remedies were
under Louisiana’s workers’ compensation
laws. The court also rejected Smith’s
argument that the workers’ compensation laws
violate the Equal Protection Clause.
In a thorough Memorandum Ruling, the
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has
determined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
district court explained its reasons. The
judgment is affirmed, essentially for the
reasons given by the district court.
In summary, we agree with the district
court’s analysis of the futility of Smith’s Equal
Protection claims. We further agree that the
facts of this case raised the rebuttable
presumption, as per LA. REV. STAT. ANN.
§ 23:1061, that Smith was a statutory
employee of Citgo and is therefore
presumptively barred from bringing claims
sounding in tort against the company, and that
Smith cannot, given these facts, rebut that
presumption in the manner required by the
statute following its 1997 amendment.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --