sought to alleviate. 632 F.2d at 514-15. Employers could relocate obvious longshoreman’s work across a property break. This in fact was the circumstance in Winchester, compelled not by a desire to withhold benefits but simply because there was no more dock space. Id. at 507. For the above reasons, I concur in the judgment of the court. 1 . During oral argument, the Hudson case was identified as proof of unpredictability. But i 843 (5th Cir.1989) (upholding ALJ’s situs determination where employer’s yard adjoined navigable waters); Reynolds v. Ingalls Shipbldg. Div., Litton Sys., Inc., 788 F.2d 264 (5th Cir.1986) (discussing coverage for seaman injured at sea); Alford v. Am. Bridge Div., U.S. Steel Corp., 642 F.2d 807 (5th Cir.1981), modified in part, 668 F.2d 791 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Petitioners have presented no
holding that the plaintiffs location on the supply barge at the time of the accident did not alter his status holding employers location on the sabine river fell within the situs requirement holding in a case involving denial of coverage under an insurance contract that the location of documentary evidence related to insurance coverage mattered less than the location of the underlying tort suits holding enhancement applicable where the record supported conclusion that drugs were stored and cut in the same location as the guns even though a search of the location yielded no drugs holding that the debtors false statements about the location of assets of the estate were material to the proceedings