Legal Opinion · Dissent

Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 26, 2006No. 04-35655Published

1DissentReinhardt, Circuit Judge

The majority allows a maritime employer to exploit the ignorance of an injured seaman and avoid paying him the compensation to which he is entitled under federal law, although for untold years it has been the policy of admiralty law to protect all seamen against this very type of willful exploitation. Icicle Seafoods advised Huseman and other seamen, in their Terms of Employment and in the Employee Handbook, that if they were to be injured, their benefits would be paid by Alaska Workers’ Compensation, and Icicle would coordinate any other benefits to which they were entitled under federal…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Burnett v. New York Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Vaughan v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. American Dredging Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Chandris, Inc. v. LatsisSupreme Court of the United States · 1995

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API