Smith v. Citgo Petro Corp ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 00-30042
Summary Calendar
_______________
JAMES ALLEN SMITH AND SADIE BREWER SMITH,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(98-CV-1815)
_________________________
July 11, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and Corporation for injuries allegedly suffered in
PARKER, Circuit Judges. an accident at a Citgo refinery. The district
court granted summary judgment for Citgo,
PER CURIAM:* concluding that Smith was Citgo’s statutory
employee, so his exclusive remedies were
James Smith sued Citgo Petroleum under Louisiana’s workers’ compensation
laws. The court also rejected Smith’s
argument that the workers’ compensation laws
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has violate the Equal Protection Clause.
determined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. In a thorough Memorandum Ruling, the
district court explained its reasons. The
judgment is affirmed, essentially for the
reasons given by the district court.
In summary, we agree with the district
court’s analysis of the futility of Smith’s Equal
Protection claims. We further agree that the
facts of this case raised the rebuttable
presumption, as per LA. REV. STAT. ANN.
§ 23:1061, that Smith was a statutory
employee of Citgo and is therefore
presumptively barred from bringing claims
sounding in tort against the company, and that
Smith cannot, given these facts, rebut that
presumption in the manner required by the
statute following its 1997 amendment.
AFFIRMED.
2