Adkins et al v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation

Filing 15

ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in this lawsuit for maintenance and cure, unseaworthiness, and Jones Act negligence. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 6/18/19. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TORY D. ADKINS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 18-2482

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

SECTION "F"

ORDER AND REASONS

Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires
that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed eight days prior
to the noticed submission date.

No memoranda in opposition to the

defendant’s motion for summary judgment, set for hearing on June
19, 2019, has been submitted.
Accordingly, because the motion is unopposed, and further, it
appearing to the Court that the motion has merit, 1 IT IS ORDERED:

Schlumberger Technology Corporation moves for summary
judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims. In support of summary
judgment, Schlumberger submits evidence that Tory Adkins was
employed as a wireline operator and, during an offshore job in
March 2017, he experienced numbness in his right arm while working
on routine tasks. Adkins was later diagnosed with carpal tunnel
syndrome and an elbow nerve injury. Adkins and his wife on behalf
of their children filed this lawsuit seeking damages under the
Jones Act and general maritime law. Adkins also filed a formal
claim for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’
Compensation Act.
“During the course of discovery,” Schlumberger submits, “it
was determined to the satisfaction of the parties that Adkins spent
1
1

that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED;
the

defendant

is

entitled

to

judgment

as

a

matter

of

law,

dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit for maintenance
and cure, unseaworthiness, and Jones Act negligence.

New Orleans, Louisiana, June 18, 2019

_____________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

less than 20% of his work time for Schlumberger on any one vessel
or any identifiable group or fleet of vessels under common
ownership or control, and, for that reason, was far short of the
30% threshold generally required for seaman status.” See Chandris,
Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 371 (1995). Indeed, according to
the summary judgment record, Akins admitted that less than 20% of
his work days were spent working on a single vessel or on an
identifiable group or fleet of vessels under common ownership or
control.
Because Adkins does not qualify as a seaman, his
exclusive remedy against his employer is for worker’s compensation
benefits.
2