Case at a glance
- Recovery: Confidential Settlement
- Injury: Lower-back injury requiring lumbar fusion
- Practice: Maritime Injury Law
- Attorney: Vuk Vujasinovic
Moving a hose between two barges
Greg worked as a tankerman. In the early morning hours of May 26, 2022, he was preparing for cargo operations at a terminal on the Lower Mississippi River near Marrero, Louisiana.
Two tank barges needed to be connected so they could discharge cargo together. That required moving a heavy crossover hose from the side of a barge toward the cargo manifold and hose-handling boom.
Greg felt pain in his lower back after carrying and manipulating the hose. He reported the injury to his supervisors and went ashore the next day for a medical examination. His treatment ultimately included a lumbar fusion.
Equipment on board did not end the safety question
The presence of a hose-handling boom became central to the dispute. The defense could point to mechanical lifting equipment on the barge and argue that Greg should have used it instead of handling the hose manually.
The VB Attorneys team examined the work as it was actually arranged. Where was the hose stored? Could the boom reach it from that position? What planning had taken place before the crew began moving it?
The team retained marine expert Captain Jay Rivera, who personally inspected the barge and reviewed the available records. In his preliminary analysis, Rivera concluded that the hose had been stored outside the boom’s useful reach. He identified a different starting point for the work: store the hose where the lifting equipment could help move it.
Looking beyond the lift itself
Rivera also examined the company’s back-safety plan, pre-job planning and the information gathered after the injury. He found no recommended lifting-weight limits in the back-safety plan and questioned whether a proper job-hazard analysis had been performed for handling the crossover hose.
The investigation also addressed the cargo-manifold reducer Greg handled during the work and the heavy steel fittings associated with the hose. The team examined the full handling task, not simply whether Greg had been told how to lift.
The expert identified practical ways to reduce the lifting demand, including placing the hose within reach of the boom, using mechanical assistance and providing additional people for the lift. Those opinions supported Greg’s position that the work should have been planned and arranged differently.
Responsibility remained disputed. The company denied liability, and the question of whether Greg should have used the available lifting equipment remained an important part of the case.
Resolving a contested Jones Act case
Vuk and the VB Attorneys team pursued the case in Harris County, Texas. The work combined an examination of the barge’s equipment and lifting arrangements with evidence of the lower-back injury that required surgery.
The parties reached a confidential settlement. The resolution ended the dispute over Greg’s injury without requiring a jury to decide how responsibility should be divided between the company and the injured tankerman.
Questions about the case
Related legal help
Learn about Jones Act claims, or read about another injured seaman’s case.
To speak with Vuk Vujasinovic about an injury while working aboard a vessel, call 877-724-7800 for a free consultation.
Every case is different. Prior results depend on the facts of the individual case and do not guarantee a similar outcome.