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?

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