With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". no catastrophic consequences of that decision. Nonetheless, the majority now overrules this precedent and adopts the Fourth Circuit’s more restrictive definition of “adjoining area,” thereby enhancing an existing circuit split. As I find no compelling reason to alter the LHWCA legal landscape in this circuit, I respectfully dissent. I. To support its adoption of the Fourth Circuit’s test, Sidwell v. Express Container Servs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1134 (4th Cir.1995), the majority advances two arguments critical of Winchester: (1) the court provided only vague instructions as to how to analyze the totality of the circumstances; and (2) that the court’s interpretation of “adjoining area” is not faithful to the plain language of the LHWCA. I address each argument in turn. A. The th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); E.J. Fields Mach. Works Inc. v. Guidry, 54

A: holding that riverboat casino was not a vessel
B: holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs
C: holding injury at premises adjacent to the houston ship channel occurred on a covered situs
D: holding that floating casino was not a covered situs
D.