## Facts

- Juan Zepeda, a longshore worker, alleged occupational hearing loss from continuous workplace noise exposure across multiple employments.
- One employer was New Orleans Depot Services, Inc. (NODSI), which operated the “Chef Yard,” a facility repairing ocean shipping containers in New Orleans.
- The Chef Yard was approximately 300 yards from the Intracoastal Canal and was separated from the canal by an unrelated bottling company and other non-maritime businesses.
- Chef Yard employees had no access to the canal; containers and equipment arrived by truck, and repaired containers left by truck or rail; no cargo was loaded while in NODSI’s custody.
- Zepeda asserted a Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) claim against a prior employer, New Orleans Marine Contractors (NOMC).
- NOMC invoked the “last responsible employer” doctrine and argued NODSI was the later covered maritime employer and thus liable.
- An ALJ found NODSI met the LHWCA status requirement (maritime employment) and the situs requirement (an “other adjoining area”).
- The Benefits Review Board affirmed; a divided Fifth Circuit panel affirmed; the Fifth Circuit reheard the case en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether NODSI’s inland container-repair facility qualified as an “other adjoining area” under 33 U.S.C. § 903(a) when it was not contiguous with navigable waters and was separated by intervening non-maritime property.
2. Whether a functional relationship to maritime activity can satisfy, or substantially relax, the LHWCA’s geographic situs requirement.

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit reversed the prior affirmance of coverage as to NODSI.
- The court held the Chef Yard did not satisfy the LHWCA situs requirement because it did not “adjoin” navigable waters within the meaning of § 903(a).
- The court interpreted “adjoining” to require physical contiguity with, or bordering on, navigable waters.
- The court overruled prior circuit precedent that had treated “adjoining” as satisfied by being merely “near” or “neighboring” navigable waters.
- The court vacated the award of LHWCA benefits against NODSI and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its situs interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- LHWCA coverage requires both (1) maritime “status” and (2) geographic “situs”; a claimant must satisfy each independently.
- Under 33 U.S.C. § 903(a), “other adjoining area” is limited to areas contiguous with, or bordering on, navigable waters.
- A facility’s functional connection to loading, unloading, or maritime commerce cannot substitute for the statute’s geographic situs requirement.
- In interpreting § 903(a), the catch-all “other adjoining area” should be read in context with the enumerated waterfront structures listed in the statute, which share a physical relationship to navigable waters.

## Conclusion

The en banc Fifth Circuit narrowed LHWCA situs coverage by requiring that an “other adjoining area” physically border or be contiguous with navigable waters, holding that an inland container-repair yard separated from the canal by intervening non-maritime property is not a covered situs even if the work is maritime in function.


New Orleans Depot Servs., Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 718 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc)