Whether an injured worker is a seaman entitled to remedies under the Jones Act or a land-based maritime worker generally covered under the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (LHWCA) has vexed courts and practitioners alike since Congress enacted the two Acts in the 1920s. See Scheuring v. Traylor Bros., Inc., 476 F.3d 781, 785 (9th Cir. 2007). Which Act applies has significant implications for the parties involved, as the remedies for the plaintiff and the liabilities for the employer differ significantly. See generally Paul M. Sterbcow, Maritime Rights and Remedies Revisited, 18 Loy. Mar. L. J. 313 (2019). The Fifth Circuit in Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Texas, L.L.C., 997 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2021) (en banc) is the latest in a long line of courts to attempt to untie this Gordian knot.
Three decades before Sanchez, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a trio of decisions clarifying who qualifies as a seaman and who does not. McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 489 U.S. 337 (1991); Chandris, Inc. v....
