Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/240

 502us1$$8Z 08-21-96 15:22:31 PAGES OPINPGT

82

SOUTHWEST MARINE, INC. v. GIZONI Syllabus

in its navigation, in order to qualify as a “seaman” under the Jones Act. Id., at 349. Petitioner’s argument that this fact-intensive inquiry may always be resolved as a matter of law if the claimant’s job fits within one of the enumerated occupations defining the term “employee” covered by the LHWCA ignores the fact that some maritime workers may be Jones Act seamen performing a job specifically enumerated under the LHWCA. Pp. 86–89. (b) Petitioner’s several arguments to foreclose Gizoni’s Jones Act suit are rejected. Decisions holding that the LHWCA provides the exclusive remedy for certain injured railroad workers otherwise permitted by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act to pursue a negligence cause of action provide no meaningful guidance here, for the LHWCA contains no exclusion for railroad workers comparable to that for Jones Act seamen. Petitioner errs in arguing that, where a maritime worker is arguably covered by the LHWCA, Congress intended to preclude or stay traditional Jones Act suits in the district courts pending a final LHWCA administrative agency determination of that issue. Indeed, the LHWCA anticipates that such suits could be brought. See 33 U. S. C. § 913(d). And, unlike the Federal Employees Compensation Act, the LHWCA contains no “unambiguous and comprehensive” provisions barring any judicial review of administrative determinations of coverage. Moreover, its administrative proceedings do not require the same jurisdictional limitations that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) places on courts in favor of National Labor Relations Board hearings, since the LHWCA’s proceedings in no way approach the NLRA’s complex and interrelated federal scheme of law, remedy, and administration requiring pre-emption in those cases. Neither is it essential to the LHWCA’s administration that resolution of the coverage issue be left in the first instance to agency proceedings. Petitioner’s suggestion that an employee’s receipt of benefits under the LHWCA precludes subsequent litigation under the Jones Act is also rejected, see Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 375 U. S. 34, 37, since the question of coverage has never been litigated in such cases, and since the LHWCA clearly does not comprehend such a preclusive effect, see § 903(e). Pp. 89–92. 909 F. 2d 385, affirmed. White, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Thomas, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

George J. Tichy II argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Roy D. Axelrod, James J. McMullen, Jr., Jacqueline P. McManus, and Lloyd A. Schwartz.