dismissing the fact that the barge upon which the claimant was injured was tethered to the shore as “an extraordinarily tenuous connection with the land” because it is not uncommon for ships undergoing repairs to be tied to the land
How later courts described this case
- dismissing the fact that the barge upon which the claimant was injured was tethered to the shore as “an extraordinarily tenuous connection with the land” because it is not uncommon for ships undergoing repairs to be tied to the land
- claim subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction when ironworker was injured while repairing ship
- “Davis and Sun Ship have defined and narrowed the scope of Jensen. Nonetheless, maritime employees who are performing traditionally maritime functions and are injured over navigable waters, under Jensen, are constitutionally barred from recovering under any state workmen’s compensation law”
- “ship repair is clearly a traditional maritime activity”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
I see no difference between repairs to a ship tethered to land and repairs to a barge tethered to land. In Sun Ship, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 447 U.S. 715 , 100 S.Ct. 2432 , 65 L.Ed.2d 458 (1980), the United States Supreme Court permitted workers injured while repairing a ship to seek compensation for their injuries through the Longshoremen and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) and our Workmen’s Compensation Act. In the case sub judice, the function performed by the claimant was identical in that he was repairing a barge tethered to the shore. I cannot fathom the gyrations performed by the majority to avoid the obvious.
I find no error of law, or a violation of Board procedure, and I find that the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Our scope of review is satisfied and we *341 must affirm. The learned Commonwealth Court has done its job well and I concur in its conclusion. I, therefore, am compelled to dissent and I would affirm on the basis of the excellent opinion of the Commonwealth Court.