Summary
holding that seaman was not entitled to summary judgment for payment of maintenance and cure where disputed issues of fact existed
Summary of this case from Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. RigbyOpinion
Case No. C04-1010L.
August 4, 2004
AT LAW AND IN ADMIRALTY ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF CARLOS GUERRA'S MOTION FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE
I. Introduction
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for maintenance and cure (Dkt. # 8). Plaintiff has requested that the Court order Defendants to reinstate maintenance and cure, retroactively, "until defendants can sustain their burden of proof or, at minimum, until they put forth enough evidence to create a triable issue of fact on the causal link between the two injuries." (Reply at 5.) For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for maintenance and cure.
Defendants requested oral argument in accordance with Local CR 7(b)(4). Having considered the motion, response, reply, and supporting materials, the Court finds that resolution of this matter without oral argument is appropriate.
II. Background
Plaintiff was a crew member on Defendants' vessel, Arctic Storm, on or about July 15, 2003, during which time he claims to have sustained "severe, painful and disabling injuries to his back and lumbar spine and other injuries not fully known at this time." (Compl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were directly and proximately caused by the unseaworthiness of the vessel and the negligence of Defendants. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff further alleges that, as a result of the injury sustained aboard the Arctic Storm, he has incurred reasonable charges for medical care and attention, and has been unable to engage in his normal occupation since his injury. (Compl. ¶ 9-10.) Plaintiff concedes that he sustained a prior injury in the same part of his anatomy as his current injury. (Reply at 2.) Plaintiff also admits that he did not disclose that prior back injury when he applied for employment on Defendants' vessel. (Motion at 1.)III. Discussion
A. Standard
While not explicitly stated, Plaintiff's motion appears to be a motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. "Other than a motion for summary judgment, we are aware of no procedure of obtaining pre-trial judgment on the merits of a claim." McNeil v. Jantran, Inc., 258 F. Supp. 2d 926, 930 (W.D. Ark. 2003); see also Bloom v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 225 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (citingSanfilippo v. Rosa S. Inc., 1985 WL 4565 at *2 (D. Mass. 1985)) ("`[U]nless the seaman can show that there are no material facts in dispute and that he is entitled to summary judgment on the claim, he cannot obtain a pre-trial order for payment [of maintenance and cure].'").
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictate that summary judgment motions be granted only if the evidence shows "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the `evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his [or her] favor.'"Orsini v. O/S Seabrooke O.N., 247 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2001) (citingAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that "there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Based on the Court's review of the evidence presented thus far, there remain material issues of fact which must be resolved before either party is entitled to judgment.
B. Motion for Maintenance and Cure
"From its dawn, the maritime law has recognized the seaman's right to maintenance and cure for injuries suffered in the course of his service to his vessel, whether occurring on sea or on land." O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge Dock Co., 318 U.S. 36, 41-42 (1943). "Maintenance and cure is designed to provide a seaman with food and lodging when he becomes sick or injured in the ship's service; and it extends during the period when he is incapacitated to do a seaman's work and continues until he reaches maximum medical recovery." Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 531 (1962). Admiralty courts are liberal in interpreting this duty for the protection of seamen who are considered wards of the court. Id. at 531-32. Generally speaking, in order to be entitled to maintenance and cure, a seaman need only prove that his injury arose while he was serving the defendant's ship.
However, maintenance and cure is not always granted to seamen who claim its benefits: "Where a seaman is asked to disclose pertinent information during a prehiring medical examination or interview and intentionally conceals or misrepresents material facts, he is not entitled to an award of maintenance and cure." Burkert v. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co., 350 F.2d 826, 831 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1965). The intentional concealment defense does not require subjective intent if the seaman fraudulently concealed information regarding a preexisting condition, about which he was directly questioned. In such situations the defendant has the burden to show that (1) the plaintiff intentionally misrepresented or concealed material facts; (2) the intentionally concealed facts were material to the employer's decision to hire the plaintiff; and (3) there is a causal link between the preexisting injury and the injury allegedly sustained while employed by the defendant. See McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp., 396 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1968). The question of the seaman's subjective belief only arises if he is not directly questioned about preexisting conditions. Burkert, 350 F.2d at 831 n. 4. In such cases a seaman who has a good faith belief that he is fit for duty will not be denied maintenance and cure for failing to voluntarily disclose a prior medical condition.
Accord Evans v. Blidberg Rothchild Co., 382 F.2d 637, 639 (4th Cir. 1967); McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp., 396 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1968); West v. Midland Enters. Inc., 227 F.3d 613, 617 (6th Cir. 2000); Sulentich v. Interlake Steamship Co., 257 F.2d 316, 320 (7th Cir. 1958); Wactor v. Spartan Transp. Co., 27 F.3d 347, 352 (8th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff repeatedly cites Schoenbaum's Admiralty and Maritime Law for the proposition that a plaintiff may be entitled to maintenance and cure even if he fraudulently concealed a material injury with a causal link to the more recent injury by directly lying to a defendant. Schoenbaum cites three cases in support of this proposition: Sammon v. Central Gulf S.S. Corp., 442 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir. 1971), Couts v. Erickson, 241 F.2d 499 (5th Cir. 1957), and Capone v. Boat St. Victoria, 1989 WL 47387 (D.Mass. 1989). Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law § 6-31 n. 27 (4th ed. 2004). In Sammon the record contained no evidence that the "plaintiff deliberately suppressed anything which he knew to be relevant." Sammon, 442 F.2d at 1029. The plaintiff in Sammon did not volunteer information about a previous wart condition on his foot about which he was not directly questioned. In Couts there was no evidence that the plaintiff purposefully concealed or misrepresented his prior medical history. Couts, 241 F.2d at 503. Capone involved a situation where there was no pre-employment physical examination or inquiry into the plaintiff's medical past. Capone, 1989 WL 47387 at *2. Here, in contrast, the Plaintiff allegedly concealed and purposefully misrepresented a prior back condition about which he was directly questioned.
Here it is undisputed that Plaintiff was employed by Defendants on or about July 15, 2003, when the injury allegedly occurred. It is also undisputed that Plaintiff concealed a prior back injury when he applied for employment with Defendants. However, the parties disagree on the materiality of the concealed back injury. Additionally, issues of fact remain in dispute regarding whether a causal link exists between the previous injury and the injury allegedly sustained in 2003. Defendants have submitted a medical history questionnaire which appears to show that Plaintiff explicitly denied any previous back injuries when seeking employment with Defendants. (Bratz Decl. Ex. J.) Defendants have further provided the Court with medical records which show that the previous injury and the injury which allegedly occurred in 2003 are, at the very least, located in the same area of the anatomy. (Bratz Decl. Exs. D, M.) Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Defendant, the Court must find that disputed issues of fact prevent summary determination that Plaintiff is entitled to maintenance and cure.
The Court did not consider the report of neuroradiologist Gary K. Stimac, submitted on July 16, 2004.
A plaintiff is not entitled to a pre-trial order for payment of maintenance and cure if disputed issues of fact prevent a court from granting summary judgment on the issue. "[F]ederal maritime law does not mandate a remedy more expeditious than summary judgment to a plaintiff seeking maintenance and cure[.]" Perry v. Allied Offshore Marine Corp., 618 So. 2d 1033, 1036 (La.Ct.App. 1993); accord Bloom v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 225 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (M.D. Fla. 2002); c.f. Glynn v. Roy Al Boat Mgmt. Corp., 57 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that maintenance and cure could not be imposed on defendant as a condition for vacating default when issues of fact remained in dispute regarding plaintiff's entitlement to maintenance and cure).
For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for maintenance and cure (Dkt. # 8) is DENIED.