Beulah Voisin Champagne v. Penrod Drilling Company
This text of 459 F.2d 1042 (Beulah Voisin Champagne v. Penrod Drilling Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ON SUGGESTION FOR HEARING EN BANC
No Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on hearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Hearing En Banc is denied.
Beulah Voisin Champagne, as admin-istratrix of the estate of Paul John Le-Blanc, appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing her action against the Penrod Drilling Company for damages under the Death on the High Seas Act. Following trial the court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law in which it concluded that the deceased, LeBlanc, was an employee of Pen-rod at the time of his injury within the meaning of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S. C. § 901 et seq. The court held that the plaintiff was therefore limited to the remedy provided by § 905 of the Act and barred from maintaining her suit for damages against Penrod. Champagne correctly conceded at oral argument that the court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. It is our judgment that the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and that the legal conclusions reached are supported by the facts found. Based on the opinion of the district court, 341 F.Supp. 1282 (W.D.La. 1971), the judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
459 F.2d 1042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beulah-voisin-champagne-v-penrod-drilling-company-ca5-1972.