Whether the injured worker was entitled to a jury determination of his status as a Jones Act seaman

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented are: 1. Where, in this case, it is undisputed that the injured worker spent 90% of his working time on vessels in navigation, operating cranes and excavators on barges, repairing vessel appurtenances, transporting by vessel tools and materials to his employer’s fleet of 100+ vessels which were building the new, and demolishing the old, Tappan Zee Bridge across the 3 mile-wide Hudson River, and where admittedly his work contributed to the function of, and accomplishment of the mission of that fleet, did the Second Circuit err by holding, as a matter of law, he was not entitled to a jury determination of his status as a Jones Act seaman, thus violating Supreme Court precedent, and conflicting with at least six other Circuit Court decisions? 2. Should the Second Circuit’s decision be overturned because application of it going forward virtually would improperly exclude from Jones Act seaman status those maritime workers whose work vessels are located at stationary construction or mineral resource recovery sites? u RELATED DECISIONS 1. Brian Doty v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC., before the Southern District of New York. Decision entered on December 18, 2019. 2. Brian Doty v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC., 831 Fed. Appx. 10 (2"4 Cir 2020), Case 20-36, appeal of District Court’s order and decision brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Decision entered on October 22, 2020. Brian Doty v. Tappan Zee Constructors, 20-36, decision denying petition for panel rehearing, or in the alternative, for rehearing en banc brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, entered on December 23, 2020.