Koehle was injured when a stack of copper fell on him. He sued Tri-State, who had hired him as a temporary worker through a labor broker to assist with vessel discharge operations, alleging negligence. Tri-State moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tri-State asserted Koehle’s claim was barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”).
Tri-State proved Koehle was a borrowed employer under the Act because (1) Koehle consented to being Tri-State’s borrowed employee (he knew his work would be performed for customers of the labor broker); (2) Koehle was employed to do Tri-State’s work when he was injured, performing the stevedoring services required to load and unload cargos from or to certain vessels at the port; and (3) Tri-State had assumed the right to control the manner and details of Koehle’s longshoring work when he was injured. Tri-State showed that Koehle may seek benefits under the LHWCA as a worker who satisfies both the “status” and “situs” tests. When he was injured, he was engaged in maritime employment in a terminal adjoining navigable waters customarily used by Tri-State in loading and unloading vessels.
Based upon these uncontroverted facts, the court concluded that it was without subject matter jurisdiction and granted Tri-State’s motion to dismiss, noting that in determining a motion to dismiss challenging subject matter jurisdiction, a trial court may properly go beyond the four corners of the complaint and receive evidence.
The case was handled by Schuyler A. Smith.