## Facts

- RDI/Caesars Riverboat Casino, Inc. operated a casino on the M/V *Glory of Rome*, a U.S. Coast Guard–registered passenger vessel equipped with engines and safety equipment.
- Beginning in August 2002, after dockside gambling became permissible, the *Glory of Rome* was moored at a dock and the casino operated dockside.
- After becoming dockside, the riverboat remained almost entirely stationary and did not transport passengers, cargo, or equipment, except for rare movements for testing.
- Tina Conder worked as a table-games dealer in the casino on the riverboat.
- Starting in August 2003, Conder was repeatedly bitten by fleas while at work and claimed she suffered adverse reactions.
- Conder alleged that steroid treatment for the flea bites caused her to suffer a heart attack.
- Conder sued Caesars and the *Glory of Rome*, asserting a federal Jones Act claim on the theory that she was a seaman; alternatively, she claimed “Sieracki seaman” status (seaman pro hac vice) based on maritime law.
- In a prior appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals held the riverboat—used as a permanently moored, dockside casino—was not a “vessel in navigation” for Jones Act purposes, and ordered dismissal of the Jones Act claim while allowing further proceedings on the Sieracki theory.
- After remand, Caesars and the riverboat moved to dismiss the remaining claims; the trial court dismissed Conder’s complaint, and Conder appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the court’s prior appellate ruling that the riverboat casino was not a “vessel in navigation” required dismissal of Conder’s Jones Act claim under law-of-the-case/mandate principles.
2. Whether Conder, a casino table-games dealer working on an indefinitely moored dockside casino riverboat, could pursue a Sieracki-seaman (unseaworthiness-type maritime) claim.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Conder’s Jones Act claim because its earlier decision controlled and would not be reconsidered in the later appeal.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Conder’s Sieracki-seaman claim, concluding the claim failed where the structure functioned as a stationary dockside casino rather than a vessel serving a transportation purpose, and Conder’s duties were not the type of shipboard work historically associated with seamen’s remedies.
- The court therefore affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Conder’s complaint in its entirety.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court’s prior ruling on a legal issue generally binds the trial court and the appellate court in subsequent proceedings in the same case, absent a material change in facts or controlling law (law of the case/mandate).
- Jones Act coverage requires seaman status tied to service of a “vessel in navigation”; a permanently or indefinitely moored dockside casino that serves no transportation function is not a vessel in navigation for that purpose.
- The Sieracki doctrine extends certain seamen’s remedies to some maritime workers who are not Jones Act seamen, but it is limited to workers performing shipboard tasks traditionally done by seamen in connection with a vessel’s maritime service.
- Work that is essentially casino operations, performed on a stationary gambling facility, lacks the necessary link to traditional maritime activity for Sieracki-type relief.
- Where the alleged injury arises from conditions aboard a structure operating as a land-based facility rather than a transportation vessel, maritime remedies premised on seaman-like status are unavailable on these facts.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal because its earlier decision foreclosed Conder’s Jones Act theory, and Conder’s alternative attempt to proceed as a Sieracki seaman failed where the dockside casino riverboat was treated as a stationary facility without a transportation role and Conder’s dealer duties were not the kind of shipboard work that triggers seaman-based maritime remedies.


Conder v. RDI/Caesars Riverboat Casino, 918 N.E.2d 759 (2009)