Which statement best describes the 1972 amendment to the USL&H Act?

Which statement best describes the 1972 amendment to the USL&H Act?

• A. In 1972, Congress added a status requirement and expanded the definition of situs to include more landward sites.
• B. The amendment removed coverage from maritime sites.
• C. The amendment created a new insurer requirement.
• D. The amendment narrowed coverage to navigable waters.

Answer: (A)

The amendment broadens who is covered by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act by expanding both where coverage applies and who is considered a maritime employee. The term situs refers to the location of the work or injury; the 1972 change widened the definition to include more land-based sites that are closely connected to maritime activity, such as shipyards, docks, and other facilities near the water. The status requirement brings in workers whose duties are maritime in character, ensuring they fall under the act even if their work isn’t performed on a vessel itself—for example, longshoremen and ship repair workers operating at a yard or dock. Together, these changes extend protections to more workers involved in maritime operations. It didn’t remove coverage from maritime sites, create a new insurer requirement, or narrow the scope to navigable waters; it actually broadened coverage.

The amendment broadens who is covered by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act by expanding both where coverage applies and who is considered a maritime employee. The term situs refers to the location of the work or injury; the 1972 change widened the definition to include more land-based sites that are closely connected to maritime activity, such as shipyards, docks, and other facilities near the water. The status requirement brings in workers whose duties are maritime in character, ensuring they fall under the act even if their work isn’t performed on a vessel itself—for example, longshoremen and ship repair workers operating at a yard or dock. Together, these changes extend protections to more workers involved in maritime operations. It didn’t remove coverage from maritime sites, create a new insurer requirement, or narrow the scope to navigable waters; it actually broadened coverage.