{ "id": 4292428, "name": "NATIONAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. (Roger Gale, Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "National Maintenance & Repair v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission", "decision_date": "2009-11-13", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201409\u20140128WC", "first_page": "1097", "last_page": "1102", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "395 Ill. App. 3d 1097" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "510 F.2d 114", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 147144 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "116" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/510/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "742 F.2d 1054", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 613386 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/742/1054-01" ] }, { "cite": "234 F.3d 58", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 11145038 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/234/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "543 U.S. 481", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5867237 ], "weight": 9, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "494" }, { "page": "945" }, { "page": "1127" }, { "page": "496" }, { "page": "947" }, { "page": "1128" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/543/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "660 N.E.2d 229", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 Ill. App. 3d 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1172376 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "386" }, { "page": "386" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/277/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "781 N.E.2d 365", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 Ill. App. 3d 723", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 637139 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "729" }, { "page": "731" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/335/0723-01" ] }, { "cite": "447 U.S. 715", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6188834 ], "weight": 9, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "720-22" }, { "page": "463-64" }, { "page": "2436-38" }, { "page": "720-22" }, { "page": "463-64" }, { "page": "2436-38" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/447/0715-01" ] }, { "cite": "317 U.S. 249", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 304034 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "256" }, { "page": "250" }, { "page": "229" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/317/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 U.S. 297", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6195683 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "307" }, { "page": "474" }, { "page": "642" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/459/0297-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 U.S.C. \u00a7903", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "weight": 3, "year": 1928, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "257 U.S. 233", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3678835 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1921, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "242" }, { "page": "214" }, { "page": "90" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/257/0233-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 U.S. 469", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3678104 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1922, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "477" }, { "page": "324" }, { "page": "158" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/257/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 U.S. 263", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 423323 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1922, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272-73" }, { "page": "936" }, { "page": "474" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/259/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "244 U.S. 205", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 343089 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1917, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "217-18" }, { "page": "1099" }, { "page": "529-30" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/244/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "896 N.E.2d 828", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "385 Ill. App. 3d 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4279674 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" }, { "page": "582", "parenthetical": "\"Ship repair is a traditional maritime activity\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/385/0567-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 U.S.C. \u00a7901", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "et seq." } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 707, "char_count": 11980, "ocr_confidence": 0.782, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14437656403906174 }, "sha256": "1d303ffc4f7ad1886f8d70f7fe3e9e2834ed388ea93770dfbaa09618bfcf87d6", "simhash": "1:9240f43acb9422ce", "word_count": 1944 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:58:02.073967+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "NATIONAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS WORKERS\u2019 COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. (Roger Gale, Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HOFFMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nNational Maintenance & Repair (National Maintenance) appeals from an order of the circuit court of Madison County which confirmed a decision of the Illinois Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission (Commission) awarding the claimant, Roger Gale, benefits pursuant to the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2006)). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.\nThe following factual recitation is taken from the evidence presented at the arbitration hearing.\nNational Maintenance operates a repair facility for barges and towboats that traverse the Mississippi River. The claimant has been employed by National Maintenance for 17 years.\nOn February 23, 2006, the claimant was working on a \u201cplant barge\u201d when an I beam fell onto his left middle finger. The claimant was taken to the emergency room, where the tip of his injured finger was amputated.\nAccording to the claimant, the \u201cplant barge\u201d is held in place by mooring lines connected to the shore and a \u201cspud,\u201d which is a two-foot-square tube that runs vertically through the barge and into the bottom of the river. Electrical supply lines also run from the shore to the \u201cplant barge,\u201d and ramps allow vehicles to be driven onto the barge.\nThe \u201cplant barge\u201d on which the claimant was injured floats on the Mississippi River but has no motor or navigational system. The claimant admitted that it would be possible to tow the barge elsewhere by disconnecting the mooring lines, cutting the electricity, and removing the \u201cspud.\u201d He testified, however, that the \u201cplant barge\u201d has not been moved since it was put in place five or six years previously.\nAt the conclusion of the hearing, an arbitrator found that the claimant suffered an accidental injury on February 23, 2006, arising out of and in the scope of his employment with National Maintenance. In his decision, the arbitrator specifically found that the \u201cplant barge\u201d was a land-based facility and, thus, there was concurrent state and federal jurisdiction over the claimant\u2019s injury. The arbitrator awarded the claimant permanent partial disability benefits at the rate of $368.32 per week for a period of 19 weeks by reason of the 50% loss of his left middle finger. The arbitrator also ordered National Maintenance to pay for certain medical expenses incurred by the claimant.\nNational Maintenance filed a petition for review of the arbitrator\u2019s decision before the Commission. In a decision with one commissioner dissenting, the Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the arbitrator.\nThereafter, National Maintenance sought judicial review of the Commission\u2019s decision in the circuit court of Madison County. The circuit court confirmed, and this appeal followed.\nNational Maintenance contends that, because the claimant was injured while upon navigable waters and engaged in a traditional maritime activity, the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. \u00a7901 et seq. (2000)) provides the exclusive remedy for his injuries and, as a consequence, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to award the claimant benefits under the Act. The claimant disagrees, maintaining that the federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction as he was on land at the time of his injury. In resolving this issue, we are asked to determine whether federal law preempts the claimant\u2019s request for state workers\u2019 compensation benefits. This is a question of law subject to de novo review. Uphold v. Illinois Workers\u2019 Compensation Comm\u2019n, 385 Ill. App. 3d 567, 572, 896 N.E.2d 828 (2008).\nPursuant to article III, section 2, of the United States Constitution, federal courts have jurisdiction over \u201call Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.\u201d U.S. Const., art. Ill, \u00a72. In the 1917 decision of Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 61 L. Ed. 1086, 37 S. Ct. 524 (1917), the United States Supreme Court declared that this provision of the federal constitution bars states from applying their workers\u2019 compensation statutes to longshoremen injured on the seaward side of the line between the land and the sea. Jensen, 244 U.S. at 217-18, 61 L. Ed. at 1099, 37 S. Ct. at 529-30. Following the Jensen decision, longshoremen injured on board a vessel in navigable waters were left without a workers\u2019 compensation remedy, while longshoremen injured on land were protected by the workers\u2019 compensation laws of the various states. State Industrial Comm\u2019n of the State of New York v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U.S. 263, 272-73, 66 L. Ed. 933, 936, 42 S. Ct. 473, 474 (1922).\nShortly after deciding Jensen, the Supreme Court began to narrow its scope by allowing relief under state law where the injured workers\u2019 employment was maritime and yet local in character. Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U.S. 469, 477, 66 L. Ed. 321, 324, 42 S. Ct. 157, 158 (1922); Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U.S. 233, 242, 66 L. Ed. 210, 214, 42 S. Ct. 89, 90 (1921). Under the so-called \u201cmaritime but local\u201d doctrine, a worker injured on navigable waters could receive compensation under state law if his employment had no direct connection to navigation or commerce and the application of the local compensation law would not materially affect the uniformity of maritime law. Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co., 257 U.S. at 477, 66 L. Ed. at 324, 42 S. Ct. at 158; Western Fuel Co., 257 U.S. at 242, 66 L. Ed. at 214, 42 S. Ct. at 90.\nSeeking to further extend workers\u2019 compensation protection to maritime workers excluded by Jensen, Congress passed the LHWCA in 1927. When originally enacted, the LHWCA provided coverage for \u201cdisability or death [which] results from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any dry dock)\u201d so long as no coverage was provided by a state workers\u2019 compensation statute. 33 U.S.C. \u00a7903(a) (1928).\nAlthough federal and state law were then theoretically linked together to provide complete coverage to maritime workers, the boundary at which state or federal law applied was far from obvious. As a result, injured workers were sometimes compelled to make \u201ca perilous jurisdictional \u2018guess\u2019 \u201d before filing a claim. Director, Office of Workers\u2019 Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Perini North River Associates, 459 U.S. 297, 307, 74 L. Ed. 2d 465, 474, 103 S. Ct. 634, 642 (1983). Due to this uncertainty regarding jurisdiction, the Supreme Court created a \u201ctwilight zone\u201d into which factually questionable cases would fall and over which state laws could provide compensation. Davis v. Department of Labor & Industries, 317 U.S. 249, 256, 87 L. Ed. 246, 250, 63 S. Ct. 225, 229 (1942).\nIn 1972, Congress extended the LHWCA\u2019s jurisdictional reach landward by including within its coverage injuries occurring upon \u201cany adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel.\u201d 33 U.S.C. \u00a7903(a) (1994). Additionally, the 1972 amendment also deleted the provision that benefits were only available if coverage was not provided by state workers\u2019 compensation statutes. See 33 U.S.C. \u00a7903(a) (1994).\nIn Sun Ship, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 447 U.S. 715, 65 L. Ed. 2d 458, 100 S. Ct. 2432 (1980), the Supreme Court considered whether the extension of coverage under the LHWCA to certain land-based injuries preempted claims brought under state workers\u2019 compensation statutes. Noting that Congress had not declared that federal jurisdiction over the expanded areas of coverage provided in the 1972 amendments to the LHWCA was exclusive, the Supreme Court held that the extension of federal jurisdiction to land-based injuries supplements, rather than supplants, state workers\u2019 compensation laws. Sun Ship, Inc., 447 U.S. at 720-22, 65 L. Ed. 2d at 463-64, 100 S. Ct. at 2436-38.\nIn light of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Sun Ship, Inc., concurrent state and federal jurisdiction exists over those land-based injuries falling within the coverage of the LHWCA. McCoy v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 335 Ill. App. 3d 723, 729, 781 N.E.2d 365 (2002). Nevertheless, the holding in Jensen that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over injuries suffered by workers engaged in traditional maritime activities upon navigable waters has not been overruled and, thus, remains binding. Wells v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 277 Ill. App. 3d 379, 386, 660 N.E.2d 229 (1995). As a consequence, an employee who is performing a traditional maritime function and is injured on navigable waters cannot recover benefits under this state\u2019s compensation laws. Wells, 277 Ill. App. 3d at 386.\nIn this case, the parties do not dispute that the claimant was engaged in a traditional maritime activity at the time of his injury. See Uphold, 385 Ill. App. 3d at 582 (\u201cShip repair is a traditional maritime activity\u201d). Accordingly, the only issue presented is whether the claimant was injured on land or over navigable waters.\nIn Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481, 160 L. Ed. 2d 932, 125 S. Ct. 1118 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a watercraft will be considered a vessel within the meaning of the LHWCA so long as it is capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, as opposed to being permanently moored or otherwise rendered incapable of transportation. Stewart, 543 U.S. at 494, 160 L. Ed. 2d at 945, 125 S. Ct. at 1127. Because a ship long docked, anchored, or moored can be cut loose and made to sail, the crucial question is \u201cwhether the watercraft\u2019s use \u2018as a means of transportation on the water\u2019 is a practical possibility or merely a theoretical one. [Citation.]\u201d Stewart, 543 U.S. at 496, 160 L. Ed. 2d at 947, 125 S. Ct. at 1128.\nWhile National Maintenance asserts that it is physically possible to move the \u201cplant barge\u201d by towing it to another location, such a possibility is merely theoretical. The undisputed evidence reveals that the \u201cplant barge\u201d in question is affixed to the shore with mooring lines and a \u201cspud.\u201d It also receives electricity from a land-based source, and vehicles can be driven onto the barge via ramps. The testimony at the hearing was that since being installed at this location five or six years previously, the \u201cplant barge\u201d had not moved, and there is no indication in the record before us that National Maintenance has any intention of ever moving the barge. Under these facts, we conclude that the \u201cplant barge\u201d has been permanently moored and, therefore, is not a vessel. Rather, the \u201cplant barge\u201d is similar to a floating dock permanently affixed to the shore \u2014 a structure traditionally considered an extension of land. See, e.g., South Port Marine, LLC v. Gulf Oil Ltd. Partnership, 234 F.3d 58, 64 (1st Cir. 2000); Johnson v. John F. Beasley Construction Co., 742 F.2d 1054, 1063 n.8 (7th Cir. 1984); Bennett v. Perini Corp., 510 F.2d 114, 116 (1st Cir. 1975).\nIn sum, we find that the claimant was injured on a land-based structure. Consequently, the Commission, in adopting the decision of the arbitrator, properly concluded that it had jurisdiction over this matter. See Sun Ship, Inc., 447 U.S. at 720-22, 65 L. Ed. 2d at 463-64, 100 S. Ct. at 2436-38; McCoy, 335 Ill. App. 3d at 731. There being no other issues raised by National Maintenance in this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court, which confirmed the decision of the Commission.\nAffirmed.\nMcCullough, P.J., and Hudson, holdridge, and DONOVAN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HOFFMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Eugene E Keefe, of Keefe, Campbell & Associates, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Todd J. Schroader and Mary E. Massa, both of Becker, Schroader & Chapman, P.C., of Granite City, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "NATIONAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS WORKERS\u2019 COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. (Roger Gale, Appellee).\nFifth District (Illinois Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission Division)\nNo. 5\u201409\u20140128WC\nOpinion filed November 13, 2009.\nRehearing denied December 18, 2009.\nEugene E Keefe, of Keefe, Campbell & Associates, of Chicago, for appellant.\nTodd J. Schroader and Mary E. Massa, both of Becker, Schroader & Chapman, P.C., of Granite City, for appellee." }, "file_name": "1097-01", "first_page_order": 1113, "last_page_order": 1118 }