ARAIZA

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Kerr-McGEE Corp. v. Ma-Ju Marine Servs., Inc., 830 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1987)
  …lities of the time-charterer are not enhanced under section 5(b) because the plaintiff is an employee of the defendant injured in the scope of her employment. Castorina v. Lykes Brothers S.S. Co., Inc., 758 F. 2d 1025, 1033 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 846, 106 S.Ct. 137, 88 L.Ed.2d 113 (1985). Nor are such duties and responsibilities of the time-charterer, and its consequent potential negligence, otherwise any greater in the context of a section 5(b) suit than in other contexts, for as we have note…
• Johnston v. Captain R.B. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415 (9th Cir. 1989)
  …named, satisfies the requirement of clauses (1) and (2) hereof with respect to the United States or any agency or officer thereof to be brought into the action as a defendant. . The court in Sisson v. Helms, 751 F. 2d 991 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 846, 106 S.Ct. 137, 88 L.Ed.2d 113 (1985), allowed a federal employee to bring an action against a federal employer. It did not, however, address the question of whether a federal employee may bring a claim under § 794 against a federal employer. To the…
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. U.S. Dept. OF Labor, 969 F.2d 1400 (2d Cir. 1992)
  …r than on employers and insurers.” Id. In addition to SAIF Corp. and Black, two other cases have applied the manifestation rule to comparable aspects Of the LHWCA. In Castorina v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 758 F. 2d 1025, 1031 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 846, 106 S.Ct. 137, 88 L.Ed.2d 113 (1985), the Fifth Circuit ruled that the date of manifestation of asbestosis controlled the determination of whether an injury occurred before or after the 1972 amendments. In that case, an employee had brought an unse…