Tyler offshore workers fly out of DFW, Shreveport Regional, or Houston to a helideck or a crew boat pickup, work a hitch on a Gulf platform or rig, and come back to Smith County. The flight is not the dangerous leg; the crew boat transfer to the platform is, and closer to home the Sabine River system and Lake Palestine in Anderson and Henderson Counties carry commercial and recreational vessel traffic of their own. A worker who comes home hurt is treated at UT Health Tyler on South Beckham Avenue, the Level I trauma center, or at CHRISTUS Mother Frances Hospital on East Dawson Street. The employer writes the incident report on the vessel or platform, and a federal maritime claim for a Smith County worker is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Trey Morris Injury Lawyers gathers every contract, work order, and badge from every company you reported to. Once there is a sound basis for the claim, we send preservation letters asking the vessel owner and the employer to keep the crew logs and vessel records, because moving as fast as the rules permit is how that evidence is kept and found. Those records show who was on board, the weather and sea conditions during the transfer, and how the vessel was maintained.
The law that governs the claim is federal maritime law, and it does not change because the worker lives in Smith County. A qualifying seaman sues the employer under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. Section 30104. Workers who are not seamen look to the LHWCA or OCSLA instead, and those federal deadlines are not the Texas two-year clock. Trey Morris Injury Lawyers has represented offshore workers and their families for over 20 years under the Jones Act, general maritime law, LHWCA, and OCSLA, and we classify the worker from the vessel and the job before an offshore injury is filed under the wrong statute.
Who Qualifies as a Jones Act Seaman: The Chandris Test
Jones Act
A federal law (46 U.S.C. Section 30104) that gives seamen the right to sue their employers for negligence. It is the primary federal remedy for maritime workers injured at sea and provides jury trial rights not available under workers’ compensation.
Federal maritime law governs offshore worker injuries, not Texas state law. The threshold question in most maritime cases is whether you qualify as a “seaman” under the Jones Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court set the test in Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995). Two requirements must be met. First, your duties must contribute to the function of a vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission. Second, you must have a substantial connection to a vessel in navigation. Courts apply a rough 30% threshold: if you spend less than 30% of your work time aboard vessels, seaman status is difficult to establish.
A “vessel in navigation” is broader than most workers expect. It includes offshore drilling rigs, jack-up rigs, semi-submersibles, supply boats, crew boats, and pipe-laying barges. It does not include fixed platforms permanently attached to the seabed. Workers on fixed platforms may have different claims under OCSLA.
Many East Texas offshore workers commute to Gulf platforms on 14-on/14-off or 28-on/28-off rotations. Vessel owners and their insurers often dispute seaman status for these workers, arguing the rotation schedule breaks the continuity of connection. This argument has been contested in courts, and the outcome depends heavily on the specific terms of your work assignment.
If you do not qualify as a seaman, you may still have claims under LHWCA or OCSLA. See offshore injury claims for a broader overview of available frameworks.
Maintenance and Cure: What the Shipowner Owes You
Maintenance and Cure
Two separate obligations owed to an injured seaman under general maritime law. Maintenance is a daily living allowance. Cure is payment of medical expenses. Both are owed regardless of fault from the date of injury until maximum medical improvement.
Maintenance and Cure is owed to every qualifying seaman, regardless of fault. You do not have to prove your employer was negligent. The obligation arises automatically when you are injured in the service of a vessel.
Maintenance is a daily living allowance covering basic living expenses while you are unable to work. The historical rate has been $35 to $45 per day, though that figure is outdated in many jurisdictions. Courts increasingly require amounts that reflect actual housing and food costs. Your employment contract may specify a rate, but courts can increase the contractual rate if it is inadequate.
MMI
Maximum Medical Improvement. The point at which your treating physician determines your condition has stabilized and further treatment will not significantly improve the outcome. Maintenance and cure obligations end at MMI.
Cure requires the vessel owner to pay all reasonable and necessary medical treatment until you reach MMI. The employer cannot terminate cure simply by offering a cheaper treatment alternative or by obtaining an independent medical examination that declares you at MMI prematurely. If the employer willfully or wantonly refuses to pay maintenance and cure, you may be entitled to punitive damages under Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009).
Maintenance and cure runs as a separate legal basis alongside your Jones Act negligence claim. You can pursue both simultaneously. See also workers’ compensation claims for how these maritime benefits differ from Texas workers’ comp.
What Is Unseaworthiness and How Does It Differ from Negligence?
Unseaworthiness is a strict liability doctrine under general maritime law. You do not need to prove the vessel owner was negligent. You need to prove the vessel was not reasonably fit for its intended use at the time of your injury.
The doctrine covers the vessel itself, its equipment, its gear, and its crew. A vessel is unseaworthy when it has defective machinery, faulty rigging, improperly maintained decks, inadequate safety equipment, or a crew that is incompetent or understaffed for the operation. The standard is objective: would a reasonable shipowner have considered this vessel fit for its mission?
The unseaworthiness claim runs against the vessel owner, not just your employer. This distinction matters. In many offshore operations, the Jones Act employer (the company that hired you) and the vessel owner are different entities. Unseaworthiness lets you pursue the owner directly. The owner cannot delegate the duty to make the vessel seaworthy to a contractor or third party. It is absolute and non-delegable.
LHWCA Section 905(b): When You Can Sue the Vessel Owner
LHWCA
Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. A federal workers’ compensation statute covering maritime workers who do not qualify as seamen, including longshoremen, harbor workers, ship repairers, and dock workers. Administered by the U.S. Department of Labor.
The LHWCA covers non-seamen maritime workers. If your work is on docks, in shipyards, at marine terminals, or in ship repair, you likely fall under LHWCA rather than the Jones Act. LHWCA provides medical benefits, wage replacement for temporary and permanent disability, and vocational rehabilitation.
LHWCA is workers’ compensation. It does not allow you to sue your employer for negligence in most cases. However, Section 905(b) creates an important exception: a negligence claim against the vessel owner. This is separate from your LHWCA benefits and can produce significantly higher recoveries.
The categories of vessel negligence under 905(b) were defined by the Supreme Court in Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981). The first is the turnover duty: the vessel must be in safe condition when delivered to the stevedore. The second is the active control duty: the owner cannot negligently exercise control over the stevedore’s work. The third is the duty to intervene: when the owner knows of an unreasonably dangerous condition the stevedore will not correct.
LHWCA workers on the Sabine-Neches Waterway near Port Arthur and Orange, TX, or at the Port of Beaumont, are a significant population in East Texas. If you work in that corridor and were injured on or adjacent to a vessel, a 905(b) claim may apply. LHWCA claims have a one-year filing deadline under 33 U.S.C. Section 913. See Jones Act claims to understand how the two frameworks differ.
OCSLA: Federal Jurisdiction on Offshore Platforms
OCSLA
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. A federal statute (43 U.S.C. Section 1333) extending federal jurisdiction to fixed platforms and other structures on the Outer Continental Shelf. Determines which laws apply to workers on fixed offshore installations.
The OCSLA extends federal law to fixed platforms permanently attached to the seabed on the Outer Continental Shelf. For workers who do not qualify as Jones Act seamen, OCSLA may apply the adjacent state’s workers’ compensation law as surrogate federal law.
The key distinction is between fixed and floating. A fixed platform (attached to the seabed by legs or pilings) falls under OCSLA. A floating rig (semi-submersible, drillship, or jack-up in certain configurations) may qualify as a vessel under general maritime law, making the Jones Act potentially available. The classification of your worksite is a threshold legal question, and it directly determines which remedies you have.
OCSLA workers who do not qualify for Jones Act benefits may have tort claims against third-party contractors or vessel operators who worked alongside them on the platform. The framework is complex, and the applicable fault standard and deadlines differ from both the Jones Act and Texas state law. Trey Morris Injury Lawyers handles cases under both frameworks for East Texas clients who work Gulf Coast platforms.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes; each case is decided on its own facts. See our full case results.
The Borrowed Servant Doctrine: Who Is Your Employer?
The borrowed servant doctrine determines which of multiple offshore entities is your Jones Act employer. A Gulf of Mexico platform operation might involve a platform operator, a vessel owner, a drilling contractor, a service company, and a staffing agency. Each entity has its own insurance and its own interest in denying responsibility for your injury.
Borrowed Servant Doctrine
A maritime and general employment law doctrine that can shift Jones Act employer liability from your nominal (paycheck) employer to a temporary employer who directed your day-to-day work. Courts use a multi-factor test to determine who exercised actual control.
The Borrowed Servant Doctrine addresses this directly. It can make a temporary employer liable for a Jones Act claim even if that entity did not formally hire you. Courts apply a four-factor test. Which entity had the right to direct and control your work? Which had the power to discharge you? Which furnished the tools and worksite? Which paid your wages?
You can pursue both the nominal employer (the company that issued your paycheck) and the borrowed employer (the entity that controlled your work) simultaneously. You do not have to choose one at the outset. The defendants will dispute this question vigorously, because whoever qualifies as the Jones Act employer bears the negligence liability.
East Texas workers placed through staffing agencies for Gulf Coast assignments should document every entity in their employment chain before filing. This means gathering all contracts, work orders, orientation documents, and badges from every company you reported to.
Your Tyler Injury Attorneys
Founder Trey Morris leads every injury case the firm takes.
Pure Comparative Fault in Maritime Law vs. Texas Proportionate Responsibility
Texas personal injury law uses proportionate responsibility under CPRC Chapter 33. A plaintiff who is 51% or more at fault recovers nothing. At exactly 50% fault, you recover but your damages are cut in half.
Pure Comparative Fault
A fault allocation system used in federal maritime cases. Under pure comparative fault, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they were 99% at fault. Recovery is reduced by the plaintiff’s fault percentage, but never eliminated entirely. This differs from Texas proportionate responsibility, which bars recovery at 51% fault.
Federal maritime law uses Pure Comparative Fault. Under the maritime system, you can recover even if a jury finds you were 90% responsible for your own injury. Your recovery is reduced by your fault percentage, but it is never cut to zero.
This is one of the most consequential distinctions in maritime practice. A vessel owner’s insurer may argue that Texas law governs your case, which would eliminate your claim if your fault exceeds 50%. Your attorney’s ability to argue that federal maritime law applies and its pure comparative fault standard controls can be the difference between a recovery and no recovery.
Which fault system applies depends on which legal framework governs your case: Jones Act, general maritime law, OCSLA, or LHWCA. Each has different standards. The choice of law analysis is not straightforward. See also Tyler Texas injury lawyers for a general overview of Texas personal injury standards.
How Long Do You Have to File a Jones Act or Maritime Injury Claim?
Jones Act claims must be filed within three years of the date of injury under 46 U.S.C. Section 30106. General maritime law unseaworthiness claims follow the same three-year period.
This deadline is longer than the two-year statute of limitations for standard Texas personal injury claims under CPRC Section 16.003. The difference matters for East Texas workers who may not immediately recognize their case as a maritime claim. An attorney who tells you that you have two years may be applying Texas law to a federal maritime case.
Maintenance and cure claims have no fixed limitations period, but they are subject to laches: a doctrine that bars claims where unreasonable delay has caused prejudice to the opposing party. In practice, you should pursue maintenance and cure as promptly as you pursue your Jones Act claim.
LHWCA claims operate on a different and shorter deadline. You must file a claim with the U.S. Department of Labor within one year of disability or death under 33 U.S.C. Section 913. This one-year window can be tolled if the employer or carrier provides voluntary compensation, but relying on tolling is risky. Missing the correct deadline is an unrecoverable error.
What clients say
- ★★★★★
Where should I start!?
Trey Morris Injury Law Firm was a great fit for me! During this wild time of getting into a car wreck, dealing with insurance, and other third parties, Mrs. Brooke and Mrs. Nerren were extremely helpful! They were there for me through the whole process and never once did I doubt their professionalism. They will fight tooth and nail for you and get you what you deserve. I would recommend them to anyone.
- ★★★★★
Trey Morris what a great experience if I ever have to suggest a lawyer's office Morris is my first choice will be suggesting to friends and family
- ★★★★★
Very professional and very easy to work with throughout the whole case!
Lane and Men helped make the whole process go smonthly with no stress
- ★★★★★
Great experience overall.
Seth and Jessica were always there to help and I could tell they truly had my best interest in mind. I was overwhelmed after my incident and they walked me through every step of the way and provided a lot of relief.
- ★★★★★
I hired [Trey Morris Injury Lawyers] to represent me with my case.
Mr. Lane Robinson, Jessica, and Yadira has been with me every step of the way, making sure I received the proper care I needed to get well. They always called emailed and text to make sure I was doing OK. I would recommend the firm to anyone. They have an amazing team. I couldn’t have made a better choice. Thank you all for everything you have done for me and my family.
- ★★★★★
I just want to express how pleased I am with [Trey Morris Injury Lawyers].
Their caring team made a huge difference in my experience. From the moment I reached out, they were attentive and supportive, guiding me through every step of the process. They truly took the time to listen to my concerns and made me feel valued as a client. I highly recommend their services to anyone in need of a compassionate and dedicated legal team!
Testimonials do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
East Texas Workers and Gulf Coast Platforms: What Tyler Clients Need to Know
East Texas has a significant offshore worker population. Workers from Tyler, Longview, Lufkin, Nacogdoches, and Marshall regularly work Gulf of Mexico platforms on rotation schedules. The typical pattern is a fly-out from DFW, Shreveport Regional, or Houston airports to a helideck or crew boat pickup point. The commute itself is not the dangerous part. The crew boat transfer to the platform is.
Injuries during crew boat transfer are among the most common and most legally complex in offshore work. Whether the injury creates a Jones Act claim, an LHWCA 905(b) claim, or a general maritime negligence claim depends on your classification and which entity operated the crew boat. Trey Morris Injury Lawyers has handled cases for East Texas clients injured in exactly this pattern.
Closer to Tyler, Lake Palestine in Anderson and Henderson Counties and the Sabine River system see recreational and some commercial vessel traffic. Injuries on navigable waterways can fall under general maritime law even if they occur well inland. A boating accident on Lake Palestine or an injury on the Sabine River may invoke federal maritime jurisdiction.
Workers and families in Smith County can file federal maritime claims in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Trey Morris Injury Lawyers represents clients in East Texas and knows the Gulf platform operators, vessel owners, and insurers active in this region.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Texas law or federal maritime law apply to my offshore injury case?
What is the difference between the Jones Act and the LHWCA?
Can I get fired for filing a Jones Act claim against my employer?
How long do I have to file a maritime injury lawsuit in Texas?
What is maintenance and cure, and can my employer cut it off?
I work for a staffing contractor on an offshore platform. Who is my employer for Jones Act purposes?
Does pure comparative fault mean I can recover even if I was partly at fault?
Last updated October 7, 2026