The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Bommarito v. Belle Chasse Marine Transp., L.L.C., No. 22-30382, 2025 WL 3166250 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2025) addresses several issues:

  • Jurisdiction under the Admiralty Extension Act – The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Trial Court’s admiralty jurisdiction.
  • What qualifies as an appurtenance to a vessel – The Fifth Circuit affirmed the classification of the crane barge’s hooks as appurtenances to the vessel.
  • Corporate identity – The Fifth Circuit affirmed that the two companies involved herein are essentially the same company.
  • Liability under Section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) – The Fifth Circuit overturned the Trial Court’s holding that the Plaintiff’s ingestion of an illegal drug was a superseding cause of his death that is not traceable to his work injury.

Bommarito v. Belle Chasse Marine Transp., L.L.C. – Background

The Plaintiff, Bosit Bommarito, worked for Belle Chasse Land Transportation Inc. and Belle Chasse Marine Transportation, LLC. Belle Chasse Land Transportation Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Belle Chasse Marine Transportation, LLC. Bommarito was injured on the job while constructing a launch on the Mississippi River. Bommarito was a Longshoreman working in conjunction with a crane barge when he suffered a serious fall and sustained multiple injuries.

After treating with numerous physicians, undergoing surgery for his injury, and exhausting his prescribed medications for pain, Bommarito overdosed on a combination of street Fentanyl and Xylazine, a horse tranquilizer not prescribed for human use. Bommarito’s estate sued Belle Chasse for personal injury under the Jones Act and general maritime law and later added a claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b).

Court Rulings

The Eastern District of Louisiana Judge held Belle Chasse liable for vessel negligence under the LHWCA because it breached two duties of active control as well as the duty to intervene. Regarding causation, the District Court found that the decedent used fentanyl and xylazine to cope with intractable pain. The court awarded $575,668.09 in damages for pain and suffering before death, loss of consortium, loss of support, estate expenses, and past medical expenses.

The majority of the Fifth Circuit panel reversed the award. Addressing causation, Judge Richman wrote: “Whether an overdose from illegal drugs is a superseding cause is an issue of first impression in our circuit, and one that few federal courts have addressed.”

The majority then draws on state law, “conclud[ing] ingesting illegal drugs to be a superseding cause.” The decedent ingested more than six times the lethal dose of fentanyl. As the majority explained, “[o]ur own precedent recognizes that the superseding cause doctrine ‘is predicated on the notion that “there must be a terminus somewhere, short of eternity, at which the second party becomes responsible in lieu of the first.” Foreseeability is a continuum; at some point, there is no causation as a matter of law.’”

Thus, the Fifth Circuit held that Bommarito’s ingestion of an illegal drug was a superseding cause of his death that is not traceable to his work injury, reversing the District Court’s award and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Takeaway

This application of illegal drug use resulting in death as a superseding cause establishes a new rule. The Fifth Circuit’s choice to overturn the District Court in this case suggests that this holding can be applied in future cases as a bright line rule as the standard of review here required a finding of “clear error” despite the well documented rationale of the District Court.

The District Court considered pertinent facts such as:

  • claimant’s pain related to the workplace accident and resultant injuries;
  • his prior prescriptions of pain medication – including for a time Fentanyl;
  • that he had exhausted the prescribed medication;
  • that he had unsuccessfully tried to manage his continued pain with over the counter options;
  • that he had unsuccessfully sought to set an appointment but was unsuccessful;
  • and that the Claimant had no criminal record or documented history of illegal drug use.

Despite this, the Fifth Circuit found that the District Court was in clear error. The Fifth Circuit here applies this rule to a wrongful death and loss of consortium claim brought via Section 905(b) of the LHWCA. Presumably, this application would apply to other tort claims under General Maritime Law.

It will be interesting to see whether the rule will also apply to LHWCA claims before the Office of Administrative Law Judges and Office of Workers Compensation Programs. Seemingly the defense is now available until the Courts and Benefits Review Board distinguish otherwise.

Download PDF of Fifth Circuit ruling >

The post Illegal Drug Use a Superseding Case Foreclosing 905(b) Recovery appeared first on MBLB.