Richard Johnson Putnam

The case concerned whether the Social Security Administration could offset overpayments of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits made to the claimant's husband against her retroactive Title II disability benefits. The court decided to reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the case for further proceedings. The core reasoning was that the relevant statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-6, permits offsets only for benefits received by the same individual or spouse in the context of their own entitlements, not cross-spouse offsets, and that benefits at the couple rate must still be calculated separately for each spouse.

federal powerhealthcare

This case involved cross-motions for summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action arising from an offshore oil drilling contract between Sonat Exploration and Falcon Drilling. An employee of Sperry-Sun was injured on a rig operated by FDI, a Falcon affiliate, and FDI sought defense and indemnity from Sonat under the contract after being sued by the employee. Sonat argued it owed no such obligations and was instead entitled to coverage as an additional insured on Falcon's policy. The court granted Sonat's motion and denied FDI's, holding that the contract required Falcon to procure broad general liability insurance covering all parties' risks and contractual indemnities, with Sonat named as an additional insured, and that insurance coverage must be exhausted before any defense or indemnity obligations apply.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from injuries sustained by plaintiff Jerry B. Hodgen during a swing rope transfer from a fixed platform to a vessel in the Gulf of Mexico in 1991. The court had previously found defendants Forest Oil Corporation (as time charterer) and A & A Boats/C & G Marine negligent under general maritime law, awarding over $2.4 million in damages apportioned 85% to Forest and 15% to A & A/C & G, while ruling Forest was not at fault as platform owner. On remaining claims, the court denied Forest's request for defense costs from plaintiff's employer OCS under the Meloy exception to the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act because Forest was found at fault overall as one entity. It also held that contractual provisions making Forest and A & A/C & G additional assureds under OCS's insurance policies were void under the Act absent evidence that Forest paid its share of premiums, and addressed related insurance priority and limitation-of-liability issues among the parties.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a personal injury claim by Jerry Hodgen, an employee of Operators and Consulting Services (OCS), who was hurt during a swing rope transfer from a fixed oil platform to a vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. The court had previously found negligence by Forest Oil (as time charterer) and the vessel owners, and the current ruling addresses Forest's indemnity claims against OCS and its insurers under a master service contract. On reconsideration, the court determined that the contract was non-maritime in nature because OCS's services were performed on fixed platforms rather than vessels. As a result, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act incorporated Louisiana's Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act, which voids the contractual indemnity provisions to the extent they cover the indemnitee's own negligence. The court therefore dismissed the cross-claims and third-party demands for contractual indemnity.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a platform worker, Jerry Hodgen, who was injured while transferring by swing rope from an unmanned oil platform to a vessel in the Gulf of Mexico in May 1991. Hodgen, employed by OCS and working on platforms owned by Forest Oil (which time-chartered the vessel from A&A/C&G), sued for negligence under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act for the vessel-related claims and Louisiana law for the platform claims. After a bench trial, the court found Forest negligent as time-charterer for directing the transfer in rough seas of 7-9 feet when a helicopter was available, and A&A/C&G negligent for permitting the transfer without adequate safety procedures; platform claims were dismissed because Hodgen was a borrowed employee of Forest. The court awarded Hodgen over $2.4 million in damages for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, while rejecting his wife's loss of consortium claim.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerns whether a material misrepresentation on an application for group health insurance under an ERISA-regulated employee benefit plan voids the policy even if made in good faith. On remand from the Fifth Circuit, which held that the relevant Louisiana statute was preempted by ERISA, the court applied federal common law and ruled in favor of the insurer, Pacific Mutual. The court held that under general contract principles, including Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 164, a misrepresentation that is material and induces issuance of the policy allows avoidance regardless of the applicant's intent or good faith. The decision emphasized ERISA's goal of uniform regulation and noted that requiring proof of fraud would increase insurer costs by necessitating more independent medical examinations.

business & regulatoryhealthcarefederal powerlabor & employment

The case involved plaintiffs James and Yvette Tingle suing Pacific Mutual Insurance Company after the insurer rescinded Mrs. Tingle's coverage and denied a claim for $71,300 in medical expenses from back surgery and related complications. Mr. Tingle had completed a group health insurance enrollment form on behalf of his family with incorrect answers about his wife's back issues, diabetes diagnosis, weight, and medications, though the court found he believed the answers were accurate and had no intent to deceive. The court concluded that the misrepresentations were material but lacked the required intent to deceive under Louisiana law, so Pacific Mutual could not rescind coverage or deny benefits; it awarded the full medical costs to the Tingles and assigned $52,794 to intervenor Lafayette General Medical Center under ERISA, while denying penalties, exemplary damages, and attorney fees.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a fatal accident during a personnel transfer from a vessel to an offshore oil platform on the Outer Continental Shelf, where the worker's employer sought to avoid contractual indemnity obligations to the platform operator after the operator settled wrongful death claims. The court determined that the service contract was maritime in nature based on factors including the work's relation to vessel operations and the offshore location. However, applying the contract's choice-of-law provision, Texas law governed, under which mutual indemnity agreements backed by insurance are enforceable, leading the court to grant judgment in favor of the platform operator Union Texas Petroleum against the employer PPI.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a workplace injury to Keith Guidry, an employee of CSI Blasters/Painters, who sued McDermott after being injured on a subcontracted job; Guidry later settled his claim for $175,000, with National Union and ILU each contributing half while disputing coverage. National Union had issued a claims-made policy to CSI covering May 1986 to May 1987, and ILU issued a follow-on policy from May 1987 to May 1988 that included retroactive coverage back to 1986 under certain conditions. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether National Union's extended reporting period or ILU's retroactive provisions applied to the claim filed in mid-1987. It denied National Union's motion, granted ILU's in part, and held that both policies contained irreconcilable escape clauses that were mutually repugnant, requiring the insurers to prorate the loss equally.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by the Goodrich plaintiffs seeking cancellation of a 1943 oil and gas lease covering over 1,200 acres in Louisiana that had been unitized into the Duck Lake Fieldwide Unit under state conservation orders. The court held that the lease would be cancelled as to specified acreage outside the unit boundaries but would remain in effect for all lands inside the unit. The core reasoning was that Exxon had met its implied obligation as a reasonably prudent operator by drilling dozens of wells, investing tens of millions of dollars, and generating substantial production within the unit, while failing to pursue or develop identified prospects on non-unitized leasehold acreage. The court also denied damages, awarded limited attorney's fees, and apportioned costs equally.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a worker employed by Teledyne who was injured while unloading casing from a vessel time-chartered by Mobil Oil on an offshore platform. The plaintiff sued Mobil for negligence both as platform owner under Louisiana law (adopted via the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act) and as vessel charterer under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. A jury found Mobil negligent and awarded the plaintiff $135,000 while exonerating the vessel owner Cheramie. On Mobil’s reserved indemnity claims, the court found that Mobil’s representative had directed the unloading operation despite poor weather conditions, establishing negligence as the charterer. The court rejected indemnity against Cheramie but granted it against Mobil’s insurers under the protection and indemnity policy naming Mobil as an additional insured.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityfederal power

In Bergeron v. United States, plaintiffs sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries and wrongful death resulting from an explosion and fire at a Department of Energy oil storage facility in Louisiana that was part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The United States moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, invoking Louisiana's workers' compensation statute (LSA-R.S. 23:1061) on the ground that it was a statutory employer because the work performed by the contractor (Pelican Well Service) was part of the government's regular trade, business, or occupation. The court examined Louisiana case law on statutory employment relationships, found that maintenance and operation of the storage caverns was integral to the DOE's congressionally authorized activities under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and granted the motion, holding that the claims were limited to workers' compensation remedies rather than tort damages.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved a personal injury claim by David Nesmith, an employee injured when he fell from a swinging personnel basket during transfer from a vessel owned by Tidex to a Texaco-owned oil platform on the outer continental shelf, resulting in back surgery and a permanent 30% disability. The court dismissed Texaco as blameless and found Tidex and Pool jointly negligent as tortfeasors in the proportions of 40% and 60%. On damages, the court applied the rules from Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co. to calculate future loss of earnings using gross income before taxes, limited merit increases, no tax deductions, and discounting to present value at a safe interest rate, while addressing the Supreme Court's Liepelt decision on tax considerations and the plaintiff's residual earning capacity at minimum wage levels.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved the Secretary of Labor seeking to enforce OSHA administrative inspection warrants against Pool Offshore Co. for two Gulf of Mexico worksites following employee fatalities, after the company refused entry. The district court first addressed jurisdiction, holding that it had authority over the warrant proceedings (distinguishing them from the injunctive relief rejected in Marshall v. Gibson’s Products Inc. of Plano) based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Marshall v. Barlow’s Inc. The court then ruled that the warrants were invalid because the supporting affidavits provided no specific evidence of regulatory violations or neutral probable cause criteria, only general references to the deaths and the company’s subjection to OSHA. Accordingly, the magistrate’s orders were reversed, the warrants vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings to narrow the scope and ensure adequate specificity.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

In this case, plaintiff James T. Clary sued his employer, Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries sustained when he fell over a retaining wall on a submersible drilling barge on the outer continental shelf. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant on both negligence and unseaworthiness claims. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, finding that the jury reasonably concluded the visible retaining wall did not constitute negligence or unseaworthiness and was not a cause of the accident. Instead, the court determined that the plaintiff's own failure to watch where he was stepping while carrying equipment was the sole cause of his injury. The court also held that OSHA safety regulations on color-coding hazards did not apply to this vessel operating on the high seas.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Marshall Roberts, an independent Exxon dealer, and Guy Benitez, who operated Exxon service stations under a “Commission Manager” contract, alleging that Exxon violated federal antitrust laws by fixing retail gasoline prices at Benitez’s stations. The threshold issue was whether Benitez qualified as an employee or, for antitrust purposes, an independent businessman whose arrangement with Exxon amounted to a consignment of goods. On stipulated facts and cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that the agreement functioned as a consignment, enabling Exxon to control prices while Benitez bore most business risks, and therefore constituted a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act under Simpson v. Union Oil Co. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion, denied Exxon’s, and certified the ruling for interlocutory appeal because it presented a controlling question of law with substantial ground for disagreement.

business & regulatory

This case involves thirty-two Black police officers, one discharged Black officer, and one unsuccessful Black applicant suing the City of Shreveport, its police chief, public safety commissioner, and later the Fire and Police Civil Service Board, alleging racial discrimination in hiring practices, promotion and assignment policies, and discharges that violated the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to alter seniority and promotion rules, back pay, and class-wide remedies for past and ongoing discrimination. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to join necessary parties, and failure to exhaust state administrative remedies, as well as a motion to intervene. It held that the 1972 amendments to Title VII made its conciliatory procedures coextensive with § 1981 remedies, and therefore stayed the litigation to permit invocation of Title VII processes while issuing injunctive relief to maintain the status quo and directing joinder of the Civil Service Board.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging Louisiana's constitutional and statutory provisions that classify murder as a non-bailable offense, even after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia eliminated the death penalty. The petitioner had previously sought injunctive relief in federal court, which was denied, and then pursued similar claims through state habeas proceedings, which were also rejected. The court denied the federal habeas petition, reasoning that there is no federal constitutional right to bail in capital cases and that Louisiana's decision to retain the non-bailable status for murder based on the crime's nature applies equally to all such defendants. The court noted that the petitioner had not utilized the state's available procedure under Article 313 to seek bail and thus could not claim a violation of equal protection or federal rights warranting habeas relief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is part of a long-running school desegregation lawsuit filed in 1965 in which the Lafayette Parish School Board sought court approval for proposed new school construction, while plaintiffs sought to reopen a previously closed virtually all-black high school and opposed the construction on grounds that it would encourage white flight from integrated schools. The court denied the request to reopen Paul Breaux High School because the identical issue had been fully litigated and decided against reopening in 1971, that judgment was final and unappealed, and the former facilities were now being used on an integrated basis. The court declined to approve the new construction because the evidence presented was inconclusive, the board had not sufficiently addressed required factors such as the affirmative duty to consider race, utilization of existing facilities, demographic trends, and whether the projects would perpetuate a dual system, as mandated by precedents including Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involved a plaintiff indicted for murder in Louisiana who, after Furman v. Georgia invalidated the death penalty, sought bail and federal injunctive relief against state constitutional and code provisions that denied bail for capital offenses. The plaintiff argued that murder was no longer a capital crime eligible for such restrictions and that the state's actions without a hearing violated due process and equal protection, also requesting a three-judge court. The district court recalled the referral for a three-judge panel and dismissed the claim for injunctive relief. The core reasoning was that federal equity jurisdiction requires a showing of irreparable injury and inadequate state remedies, and longstanding policies of federalism and comity counsel against federal courts interfering in ongoing state criminal prosecutions, with the plaintiff's constitutional claims better addressed first in state courts.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure