Pickett v. Petroleum Helicopter, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 00-60795
_______________
MARGIE A. PICKETT
(WIDOW OF JOSEPH PICKETT),
Petitioner,
VERSUS
PETROLEUM HELICOPTERS, INC.;
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, A MUTUAL COMPANY;
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
_________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Benefits Review Board
_________________________
September 28, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and DeMOSS,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Margie Pickett appeals a decision of the
Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) that she does
not qualify for death benefits regarding her late
husband, Joseph Pickett, under the Longshore
and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act
(“LHWCA”), as adopted in the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), 43
U.S.C. § 1333(b). We affirm.
I.
Joseph Pickett was a helicopter pilot for
Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., performing
contract services for Amerada Hess

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Corporation. He ferried workers and
equipment between land and offshore
platforms. He was killed when his helicopter
crashed over land during a test flight.1
Margie Pickett filed for benefits under the
OCSLA. An administrative law judge ruled
Pickett ineligible under OCSLA because his
death did not occur over the Outer Continental
Shelf (“OCS”) and thus did not satisfy this
court’s situs requirement for OCSLA benefits.2
Margie Pickett appealed to the BRB, which
affirmed.
II.
Margie Pickett concedes that the death did
not occur over the OCS but argues that the
plain language of OCSLA is inconsistent with
this court’s situs requirement. Whatever the
merits of Pickett’s statutory argument,
however, we are bound by Mills v. Director,
OWCP, 877 F.2d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 1989) (en
banc), which allows OCSLA coverage only for
employees who “(1) suffer injury or death on
an OCS platform or the waters above the
OCS; and (2) satisfy the ‘but for’ status test
this court described in Herb’s Welding, Inc. v.
Gray, 766 F.2d 898, 900 (5th Cir. 1985).”
Accord Sisson v. Davis & Sons, 131 F.3d 555,
558 (5th Cir. 1998).
Margie Pickettt argues that Mills is
factually distinct and that our earlier decisions
therefore should control. We disagree. The
relevant language in Mills is not fact-specific,
but categorically requires the injury to occur
on the OCS. In fact, the court discussed the
two cases on which Margie Pickett relies:
The Director argues that we
imposed no situs requirement for
§ 1333(b) coverage in Barger v.
Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 692 F.2d
337 (5th Cir. 1982), and Stansbury v.
Sikorski Aircraft, 681 F.2d 948 (5th Cir.
[1982]) . . . . The Director’s reliance on
those cases is misplaced.
Barger and Stansbury held that
§ 1333(b) extended the LHWCA as the
sole remedy for survivors suing the em-
ployers of individuals who (1) satisfied
the “but for” status test; and (2) died in
helicopter crashes on the high seas
above the OCS. Although some of the
dicta in those opinions may be overly
broad, we have no quarrel with those
holdings to the extent they grant
LHWCA benefits to oilfield workers in-
jured on waters above the OCS. We do
not interpret those cases to read
§ 1333(b) as extending LHWCA
benefits to oilfield workers injured on
land or state territorial waters. But cf.
Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore
Service, Inc., 849 F.2d 805 (3d Cir.
1988) (Section 1333(b) covers OCS
platform worker injured in car accident
on New Jersey Garden State Parkway
while driving to meet helicopter that
would have flown him to rig).
Mills, 877 F.2d at 361-62. Contrary to
Margie Pickett’s suggestion, Mills plainly
requires satisfaction of the situs test, even as
to helicopter crashes.
1 If the flight test had been successful, the heli-
copter would have landed, boarded passengers, and
ferried the passengers to oil platforms on the OCS.
2 Pickett also sought benefits under the
LHWCA. The administrative law judge
foundSSand Margie Pickett does not disputeSSthat
her husband failed to meet the status requirement
of the act.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Moreover, Margie Pickett’s second
contentionSSthat we should follow Curtis
because “the Court’s opinion in Mills . . . did
not disagree with Curtis”SSis unpersuasive.
Mills referenced Curtis only as “authority
[that] cites a proposition analogous to the
contrary of the main proposition.” THE
BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION
R. 1.2(c), at 23 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n
et al. eds., 17th ed. 2000).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --