Part III - An Injured Seaman's Entitlement to Maintenance & Cure
INJURED SEA AND MARITIME WORKERS: KNOWING YOUR RIGHTS UNDER MARITIME INJURY LAW - Part III
Injured Seaman’s Entitlement to Maintenance and Cure
The first two blogs in this series discussed a seaman’s right to bring tort claims alleging: 1) negligence on the part of his employer under the Jones Act; and/or 2) against the owner of the vessel alleging that the vessel was unseaworthy. Of course, in many cases, the seaman’s employer is also the vessel’s owner.
An injured vessel worker who meets the definition of seaman, quite apart from any liability claims he may have under the Jones Act and/or the Doctrine of Unseaworthiness, is entitled to Maintenance and Cure if he was injured or becomes ill while in the service of the vessel. Through the years, the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have held that maintenance refers to the right of an ill or injured seaman to meals and lodging [living allowance] comparable to that which he would have received aboard his vessel. Lewis v. Lewis Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 441 (2001) citing Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 527-528 (1938). See also Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 531 (1962).
Maritime law is a complex area and an injured seaman or maritime worker should consider seeking out an experienced maritime law attorney before settling any claim with an employer to discuss his potential avenues for compensation for his sustained injuries given the facts of his case. Maritime law attorneys will thoroughly evaluate the claimant’s case, and part of this evaluation will be to determine if the claimant has an action for maintenance and cure, as well as actions in tort.
Moreover, an employer and/or ship owner may well pay "maintenance and cure" monies and then offer to enter into a settlement agreement with the injured seaman. The injured seaman, perhaps already overwhelmed by his injuries and fear, may unknowingly accept a "low" settlement amount where he also agrees to not pursue any lawsuit even where the injuries were the result of employer negligence or vessel unseaworthiness. Rights (such as the right to bring a lawsuit) given up in a settlement agreement are usually lost forever. Before signing any settlement agreement with his employer and/or the ship's owner, the injured seaman should consult with a maritime law attorney to get a full understanding of the potential value of his injuries given the facts of his case.
The following discussion is provided to give some background on maintenance and cure in general and an update on recent case law.
Cure refers to employer’s payment of the injured seaman’s reasonable medical expenses related to the treatment of his injuries up until the seaman’s reaches the point of Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) or is found to be fit for duty by his doctor. MMI does not mean that the seaman has fully recovered from his injuries or illness. Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 528 (1938) What it does mean is that any further improvement of the injured seaman’s medical condition will not be achievable through additional medical intervention. Once this point is reached, the injured seaman’s employer has no further obligation to pay medical expenses.
The original public policy behind the concept of “Maintenance and Cure” can perhaps best be summed up by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Story’s description of the life a seaman:
Seamen are by the perculiarity of their lives liable to sudden sickness from change of climate, exposure to perils, and exhausting labour. . . If some provision be not made for them in sickness at the expense of the ship, they must often in foreign ports suffer the accumulated evils of disease, and poverty, and sometimes perish from the want of suitable nourishment. . .If these expenses are a charge upon the ship, the interest of the owner will be immediately connected with that of the seamen. . . Even the merchant himself derives an ultimate benefit from what may at first seem an onerous charge. It encourages seamen to engage in perilous voyages with more promptitude, and at lower wages. . . and urges the seamen to encounter hazards in the ship’s service, from which they might otherwise be disposed to withdraw.
Barnes v. Andover Comp., L.P., 900 F.2d 630, 632 (3rd Cir. 1990) quoting Harden v. Gordon, 11 F. Cas. 480, 482-83 (1823).
Fast forward to 2009. The language in Harden still applies. A seaman’s job always has and continues to be dangerous, especially considering that appropriate medical care may not be within easy “reach” so to speak where a seaman is seriously injured or becomes seriously ill. The Doctrine of Maintenance and Cure recognizes this fact. Maintenance and Cure is basically a form of workman’s compensation for injured seamen.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court further held that a ship-owner has an utmost duty to provide maintenance and cure to an injured seaman that even “negligence or acts short of culpable misconduct on the seaman’s part [would] not relieve him of responsibility.” Aguilard v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 318 U.S. 724 (1942). A seaman who does not receive maintenance and cure from his employer has the right to bring an action against the employer in federal court. Federal courts have generally held in favor of the injured seaman, unless the ship-owner could prove that the seaman’s injuries/illness resulted from an “act of wonton or willful misconduct.”
Recent case law suggests that a seaman who fails to disclose a pre-existing medical condition on an employment questionnaire may be prevented from receiving maintenance and cure payments. In Brown v. Parker Drilling Offshore, Corp., 396 F.3d 618 (2005) the defendant ship-owner successfully argued before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that a seaman who intentionally misrepresented or failed to disclose facts related to his health condition was not entitled to maintenance and cure. To establish willful concealment, the Fifth Circuit stated that the employer must show that: “1) the claimant intentionally misrepresented or concealed the medical facts; 2) the non-disclosed facts were material to the employer’s decision to hire the claimant; 3) and a connection exists between the withheld information and the injury complained of in the lawsuit."
In Brown, the claimant had been required to complete an employment questionnaire which included a question whether he had any past or present back and neck trouble. He stated “no,” and was subsequently hired for a job aboard the vessel which required heavy lifting. He apparently had, however, a pre-existing injury in his lumbar spine. The injury sustained during his employment as a seaman also involved his lumbar spine. On these facts, the Fifth Circuit held in favor of the Defendant and actually vacated the jury’s verdict, a rare event in appellate court jurisprudence.
Interestingly, the dissenting Judge in Brown cited a U.S. Supreme Court’s holding which stated that “when there are ambiguities or doubts [as to a seaman’s right to maintenance and cure], they are to be resolved in favor of the seaman.” Brown at 631, dissenting Judge citing Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 532 (1962). He argued that the Fifth Circuit had overstepped its bounds by vacating the jury’s verdict. See Brown at 632, dissenting judge citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) and stating “the Supreme Court has perennially instructed appellate courts not to substitute their judgment for that of the jury.” For an excellent treatise on the potential ramifications of Brown, see Taylor Moore’s article on “Maintenance and Cure: A Seaman’s Misrepresentation of His Health History Excuses His Employer."
Finally, a current “hot” issue in maintenance and cure jurisprudence is the nature of the damages which may rewarded where the employer is found to have arbitrarily and willfully failed to pay maintenance and cure to an injured seaman. In Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc., et al. v. Townsend, et al., 496 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2007 that an employer who arbitrarily and willfully fails to pay maintenance and cure can be liable for punitive damages. The defendant employer has appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Check our blog site starting in June 2009 for a summary of the High Court’s opinion.
