Seaman’s drydock injuries at issue

Kelvin Gold pinched a nerve in his neck shortly after he was hired as a seaman by Helix Energy Solutions Group, a Houston offshore energy services firm. He hurt himself again while moving a heavy beam, eventually causing him to leave a ship in Singapore and fly home to Houston.

Gold expected that he would receive benefits under the Jones Act, the federal law that provides wages, medical treatment and other support to injured sailors. But Helix denied the benefits, arguing that the ship was undergoing such extensive renovations at the time that it was no longer seaworthy — meaning the Jones Act would not apply.

The case is now on its way to the Texas Supreme Court, after a lower state court found for Helix, leaving Gold without income and medical benefits.

As a seaman, Gold is ineligible for workers’ compensation, the state program that covers employees who are injured on the job.

The issue before the state Supreme Court is whether the lower court judge erred by hearing and deciding the case himself, rather than con-

ducting a trial by jury.

Juries have decided Jones Act cases for decades and the high court’s decision could change this practice, granting judges much more discretion in determining the outcomes, maritime law experts said. The case also raises the question of what responsibilities employers have to workers injured on the job.

The Jones Act, a centuryold law named for a senator from Washington, was designed to protect sailors exposed to the perils of the sea, including fires, falls and sickness, and provide a way to hold ship owners and operators responsible for unsafe conditions. The law gave crew members the right to sue for damages as well as lost wages and health care; they can sue in state or federal court.

“Seamen are exposed to hazards that most that work on land don’t have,” said Charles Herd, a maritime lawyer at the Lanier Law Firm in Houston.

Gold, who lives in Fort Bend County, was hired in November 2012 as an ablebodied seaman as part of a crew to convert a 534-foot drydocked drilling ship

into a vessel that can extend the productive life of existing wells at a shipyard in Singapore. The ship, which Helix bought for $85 million, is known as the Helix 534. Helix spent another $30 million on the renovation, which was eventually completed in Galveston.

Gold worked 28 days on, 28 days off, and earned $100,000 a year. But he was injured in December 2012, and several months later exacerbated his injury. Gold received lost wages and medical benefits under the Jones Act until November 2013, when Helix terminated his employment, according to court documents.

Gold sued Helix to continue the benefits, accusing the company of failing to comply with government safety standards, provide a

safe place to work and proper training. Gold is seeking back pay and future wages because his injuries left him unable to do much physical labor. He also seeks to recover the cost of medical care he needs now and in the future.

Helix argued that to qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act, Gold had to work on a vessel in navigation. Since the ship didn’t even have an engine while it underwent repairs, the company argued that Gold was ineligible for medical benefits or lost wages. Helix also argued that Gold could not sue for damages under the Jones Act.

Helix also denied responsibility for the injuries. In its response to the lawsuit, the company raised several defenses including that Gold should have exercised more

care for his own safety, the injury was the result of a pre-existing condition, and Gold was aware of the risks. Whatever the reason, Helix argued, Gold was not entitled to benefits under the Jones Act because the Helix 534 was not seaworthy.

Christina Crozier, the Houston appellate lawyer representing Helix, said the issue boils down to whether the vessel was “practically capable” of transportation or merely “theoretically capable.” Without an engine or sails, Crozier said, the vessel did not meet the established test of being “practically capable” of moving people or products.

Gold argued the repairs were not extensive enough for the ship to lose its status as a seaworthy vessel. He said in court documents that

the renovations would not alter the appearance of the ship, which would remain capable of drilling wells.

Harris County state District Judge Brent Gamble agreed with Helix, dismissing Gold’s case in January 2015. But later that year, the 14th District Court of Appeals in Houston overturned Gamble’s ruling, saying that determining navigability and other issues should be left to a jury.

That’s because the definitions aren’t exact; the appeals court cited an earlier case in which a vessel in drydock was still considered to be “in navigation.”

The Texas Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for January.