In an unpublished decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of maintenance and cure benefits, and punitive damages, against a claimant’s former employer. The facts demonstrated that the claimant underwent a hip replacement surgery prior to his employment, and that he was on prescription pain medicines when he under went a pre-employment physical. The claimant never disclosed this injury to his employer. Maintenance and cure requires a vessel owner to provide compensation and medical care to an injured seaman, “even if the seaman’s injury stems from a pre-existing illness or condition, unless, the seaman knowingly concealed this condition from his employer when he was hired.” If there was concealment, an employer may lodge a McCorpen defense. McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp., 396 F.2d 547, 548 (5th Cir. 1968). Such a defense applies “when an employer subjects a seaman to a medical examination as part of the hiring processRead more
Ninth Circuit: “Award” Does Not Necessarily Refer to a Compensation Order
In a new published opinion, the Ninth Circuit addressed Section 6(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Section 6(c) states: “Determinations under subsection (b)(3) [which deal with the determination of the national average weekly wage] with respect to a period shall apply to employees or survivors currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death benefits during such period, as well as those newly awarded compensation during such period.” Although the court focused on the meaning of the words “award” and “awarded,” the holding essentially addressed when those words are synonymous with “entitlement.” In Roberts, the claimant injured his neck and shoulder when, in 2002, he slipped on a patch of ice. His employer voluntarily paid compensation, but those payments stopped in May 2005. Following a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), the court awarded claimant temporary total disability (“TTD”) from March 11, 2002 through July 11, 2002;Read more
Vessel Has Tort Immunity for Fishing Observer’s Injury
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Secretary of Commerce may require a vessel to allow onboard a government observer to monitor the vessel’s compliance with fishing regulations. 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq. These observers are federal employees, and not the employees of the vessel. Generally, vessels enjoy tort immunity for injuries that may happen to these observers. This immunity does not apply, however, if the observer is injured while “engaged by the owner, master, or individual in charge of a vessel to perform any duties in service to the vessel.” See 16 U.S.C. § 1383a(e)(7)(B). Here, the plaintiff was working as a fisheries observer aboard the F/V Lady Karen when she was injured by a snapped cable. At the time of her injury, the plaintiff left her post momentarily, to take a bathroom break. She argued that because her injury occurred during her bathroom break, she wasRead more
A Section 10(f) Increase Is “Greater Compensation”
In a new published opinion, the Benefits Review Board determined that claimant’s counsel was entitled to shifting attorneys fees because an award of Section 10(f) increases amounted to an award of “greater compensation” for purposes of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act’s attorney fee provisions. In Wilson, the claimant worked as a truck driver for employer at the time he injured his neck, spine and right knee. The employer voluntarily paid claimant temporary total disability benefits at the maximum compensation rate, and claimant filed a claim for permanent total disability (“PTD”) benefits. Thereafter, an informal conference was held by correspondence, and the district director issued a recommendation that claimant was entitled to PTD benefits until suitable alternative employment was demonstrated. Further, the lower court determined that claimant was entitled to continuing PTD benefits and Section 10(f) increases, but it nonetheless refused to shift attorneys fees. The Board determined that while the district director did notRead more
New York: Concurrent Jurisdiction for State Comp and LHWCA Claims
A dock builder was injured when he fell while stepping from a pier onto a barge. He applied for benefits under New York’s state workers’ compensation laws, but the employer and carrier made payments to claimant pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. At a hearing, the employer argued that the New York Workers’ Compensation Board had no jurisdiction over the claim. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department disagreed. It found that there was “concurrent jurisdiction among state workers’ compensation laws and the LHWCA over claims arising from land-based injuries compensable under the LHWCA.” The court distinguished those cases falling under other federal schemes, like the Jones Act or Federal Employers’ Liability Act, which provides the “exclusive remedy” for such injuries. Rodriquez v. Reicon Group, LLC, — N.Y.S.2d —-, 2010 WL 4117396 (App. Div. 2010). (Note: I originally published this post on Navigable Waters: ARead more
Louisiana Loss of Consortium Claim for OCSLA Injury
On February 27, 2009, while working on an offshore platform, the plaintiff-employee was injured when a crane allegedly fell on him. The parties did not dispute that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) applied to the claim. Instead, the dispute concerned whether the plaintiff-wife could assert a loss of consortium claim under Louisiana law. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff-wife’s claim must be dismissed. Ultimately, the Eastern District of Louisiana concluded that “workers injured on fixed man-made structures situated on the Outer Continental Shelf and their families may utilize the state tort law of the adjacent state,” and that Louisiana tort law provides a cause of action for loss of consortium claims. The defendant’s motion was denied. Henderson v. McMoran Oil, No. 09-5626, slip op. (E.D. La. Oct. 18, 2010). (Note: I originally published this post on Navigable Waters: A Maritime, Longshore andRead more
Injunction Ordering Payment of Maintenance and Cure Was Improper
In a slip opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a District Court’s injunction ordering the payment of maintenance and cure. In Collick, the claimant alleged that he was injured while working in conjunction with a crane barge. The claimant slipped and fell, sustaining a severe leg fracture requiring multiple surgeries. Physicians opined that the claimant, who was in constant pain, would never again perform such physically demanding work. Initially, the claimant’s employer began paying benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Then, once the claimant filed the instant suit wherein he demanded maintenance and cure, the employer discontinued Longshore benefits. By filing his suit, the claimant raised a question as to whether he was entitled to Longshore benefits as he may not be a longshoreman. The claimant then sought a preliminary injunction forcing the employer to pay him maintenance and cure, which theRead more
Louisiana State Employee May Sue Under Jones Act and General Maritime Law
In a recent case issued by the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, a plaintiff employed by the State of Louisiana, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, sustained cervical spine injuries while he was a member of the crew of a state owned vessel. At the time of his injury, he was patrolling waters near the Head of Passes in Plaquemines Parish. The plaintiff filed a petition for damages seeking relief under the Jones Act and general maritime law. In response, the State filed a peremptory exception, asserting that the plaintiff’s sole exclusive remedy lied in Louisiana workers’ compensation law. The Fourth Circuit disagreed. The plaintiff relied on two earlier decisions to support his proposition that he could seek relief outside of the scope of the of the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (“LWCA”). In Higgins v. State of Louisiana, 627 So.2d 217 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1993), the court determinedRead more
FL Third District: Evidentiary Finding is a Prerequisite to a Punitive Damages Claim
In 2004, an intoxicated employee for the Defendant cruise line knocked on multiple passenger doors, apparently attempting to find a place to sleep. The Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was one of the accosted passengers, and she filed a lawsuit asserting negligence, assualt, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. One month before trial, Plaintiff requested leave to amend her complaint to include punitive damages. Without making a determination as to whether a reasonable evidentiary basis existed for the punitive damages claim, the trial court allowed the amendment. The Defendant appealed the decision and the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, reversed. In Florida, a state statute provides that “[i]n any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis of suchRead more
Eleventh Circuit: Scope of the Public Vessels Act versus the Suits in Admiralty Act
The Eleventh Circuit recently addressed the interplay between the Public Vessels Act (“PVA”) and the Suits in Admiralty Act (“SAA”) as it related to negligence claims against the Coast Guard. In Uralde, the Coast Guard dispatched a boat to intercept a private vessel trying to illegally enter the United States with several Cuban citizens. A chase ensued, and it did not end until a Coast Guard officer fired two rounds into the private vessel’s engine. The sudden stop caused one of the passengers to strike her head, an injury which eventually led to her death. The plaintiff-widower launched a negligence suit against the Coast Guard, and his negligence theories were “based in the Coast Guard’s decisions regarding whether and how to provide proper medical care and timely access to medical treatment of a passenger on a private vessel interdicted at sea.” Analyzing both Acts together, the Eleventh Circuit determined thatRead more
