Abstract
In 1927, the United States Congress passed the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) to provide workers’ compensation coverage to maritime workers injured outside the purview of state workers’ compensation laws. Rigid judicial interpretation of the original Act, however, led to inequitable outcomes in the maritime industry. Workers neither on land nor on the water when injured could not claim workers’ compensation benefits under state or federal laws. The 1972 amendments to the LHWCA sought to cure this inequity. The amended Act included a situs requirement. This Comment analyzes the most important judicial interpretations of the situs requirement of the amended LHWCA. This Comment suggests that inequity remains in the coverage of maritime workers’ compensation claims because the federal courts of appeals subscribe to differing interpretations of the situs requirement. This Comment concludes that a definitive interpretation of the situs requirement by the United States Supreme Court is necessary to alleviate the resultant inequity.
Recommended Citation
Adam Hare,
Land Ho! Two Words an Injured Longshore or Harbor Worker Never Wants to Hear,
64
Cath. U. L. Rev.
161
(2015).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol64/iss1/9
Included in
Labor and Employment Law Commons, Law of the Sea Commons, Workers' Compensation Law Commons
