Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. v. Barger
Citations: 910 F.2d 276; 1990 WL 118346Docket: No. 90-4022
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; September 4, 1990; Federal Appellate Court
Walter Barger, an employee of Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. (PHI), died in a helicopter crash while flying between platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Following his death, PHI provided Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation benefits to his family. Mrs. Barger sued Bell Helicopter Textron, claiming the helicopter was a "vessel" and that Mr. Barger was a "seaman" under the Jones Act. After being informed that claiming seaman status would terminate Longshore benefits, Mrs. Barger maintained that Mr. Barger was covered by the Jones Act, leading to the discontinuation of those benefits. Before trial, a settlement was reached between Mrs. Barger and Bell, where Bell agreed to pay $225,000 in exchange for a release of liability. Although Bell was found liable by the District Court, which recognized the helicopter as a vessel and Mr. Barger as a seaman, PHI appealed this ruling, resulting in a reversal on the Jones Act issue. Subsequently, Bell paid the settlement amount and received a release. On December 12, 1982, Mrs. Barger filed a claim against PHI under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, asserting that she had exhausted her credit for the settlement with Bell. PHI contested this claim, arguing that the settlement constituted a compromise under 33(g) of the Act, which required their agreement. The Deputy Commissioner awarded benefits to Mrs. Barger, but PHI’s argument was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge who barred PHI from contesting the compromise. The Benefits Review Board affirmed this decision, prompting PHI to appeal. The court vacated the Board's judgment, aligning with its prior ruling in Nicklos Drilling Co. v. Cowart, and remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.