Mobil Mining, et al v. Nixson, et al

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 99-60273
__________________________
MOBIL MINING & MINERALS; INSURANCE
COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Petitioners,
versus
DAVID R. NIXSON; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
WORKER'S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
___________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Office of Workers Compensation Programs and
the U.S. Department of Labor
(98-988)
___________________________________________________
February 7, 2000
Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Respondent-Claimant David R. Nixson sought benefits under the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901,
et seq. for an arm injury sustained while working for his employer,
Mobil Mining & Minerals, at rail facilities on Mobil's premises
adjacent to the Ship Channel in Houston, Texas. The claim
proceeded on stipulated facts before an Administrative Law Judge.
The ALJ awarded Nixson benefits under the LHWCA after concluding

-- 1 of 2 --

that he met both the "status" and "situs" tests for coverage.
Petitioners appealed the ALJ's ruling to the BRB which affirmed.
Petitioners now ask us to reverse the BRB and ALJ, conceding
"status," but challenging "situs."
We have carefully reviewed the stipulated facts regarding both
the particular site where the accident occurred and the surrounding
area constituting Mobil's facility contiguous to the Ship Channel
in light of the applicable law as set forth in the briefs of
counsel to this court and discussed in oral argument before us.
Particularly in light of our standard of review of this case and
the seminal case in this court, Texports Stevedore Co. v.
Winchester, 632 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1980)(en banc), we are convinced
that the "area," as distinguished from the pinpoint site of the
accident, is a covered situs pursuant to the plain wording of §
903(a) of the LHWCA. As Nixson's status was stipulated, his claim
is clearly within the coverage of the LWHCA. We therefore affirm
the rulings of the ALJ and the BRB to that effect.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --