Articles Posted in Admiralty/Maritime

There are unique laws governing benefits and remedies for injured seamen. It is important to know the specific laws and defenses applicable to claims as an injured seaman.

Mr. Bourdreaux hurt his body including his back while working for Transocean and they paid for his living and medical expenses as required when a seaman gets injured on the job, as well as an allowance for food, for five years. BX sued them for additional money and also sought increased damages for the mismanagement of past benefits. He also sued for other claims under the Jones Act. See Pub. L. No. 66-261, 41 Stat. 988 (1920).

During discovery, Transocean found that BX failed to notify the company of past back problems in the medical questionnaire he was given prior to his employment. As a result, they filed a partial summary judgment on the claim for more money relying on the McCorpen defense, which allows a company to avoid paying a claim if previous medical problems were not disclosed. See McCorpen v. Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp., 396 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1968). The district court agreed and granted summary judgment on those claims. Transocean also filed for summary judgment on the negligence and unseaworthiness claim, but the motion was denied by the district court. Furthermore, Transocean filed a counterclaim against Bourdreaux seeking to recover the payments; however, the parties settled prior to the Court’s ruling on that issue.

Worker’s compensation (WC) is a system designed to compensate workers for injuries that occur on the job. The system also helps to spread the risk of loss among numerous employers, similar to an insurance arrangement that employers pay into. Still, employers have an interest in ensuring that WC claims are valid in order to keep overall costs down. As a result, WC cases can lead to bitter disputes between workers and their employers.

Andrew Schmidt was a diver for the Cal-Dive company in Lafayette, Louisiana in 2010 when he suffered a brain injury due to decompression sickness that occurred during a work-related dive. Two years later, Schmidt filed a lawsuit against Cal-Dive alleging that the injury left him permanently disabled. He claimed that the brain injury resulted in a condition that required him to remain in a supine position nearly all the time. Cal-Dive didn’t believe Schmidt’s claim and Cal-Dive hired private investigators to surveil Schmidt for evidence that his claim was fraudulent. The observation turned up nothing favorable for challenging Schmidt’s claim. Schmidt was examined by multiple medical professionals who offered conflicting expert opinions about whether Schmidt was permanently disabled. Shortly before trial, Schmidt and Cal-Dive settled and the trial court dismissed the case.

Even though the matter was settled, Cal-Dive continued to have Schmidt followed by private investigators. The PIs discovered that Schmidt purchased a new car and was observed cutting grass, shopping, driving, and jogging. As a result, Cal-Dive filed for relief from the trial court’s order to dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(1) so it could amend its original complaint against Schmidt and set aside the settlement. Schmidt filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court denied Cal-Dive’s request to set aside the settlement and refused to permit Cal-Dive to amend the complaint, finding that it would be futile. Cal-Dive appealed.

Long considered “wards of admiralty,” courts carefully scrutinize the treatment of seamen, particularly in cases where substantial legal rights are involved. One such case involves the execution of a release with a seaman, particularly when the seaman is unrepresented and in claims of personal injury. Generally, in a personal injury case, a release is a legal agreement that serves to settle the claims between the parties and terminates the injured party’s right to seek damages in court.

So, what is required to uphold such a release? The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal gave us an example in Buras v. Sea Supply. The plaintiff, Mr. Buras, was a seaman injured while working aboard the defendant’s vessel. A month later, Mr. Buras’ doctor cleared him to return to work where, without counsel present, he signed a release settling all claims against the defendants. In addition to the release itself, the evidence included a transcript of the conversation had between Mr. Buras and the defendant at the time of executing the release. This transcript showed that the defendant clearly advised Mr. Buras multiple times of both the consequences of signing the release and his right to have an attorney present. Nevertheless, Mr. Buras signed the release stating he understood he was giving up his legal rights in connection with this claim and declined to speak to an attorney. Nearly a year later, Mr. Buras filed a claim seeking to have the release declared unenforceable; however, the trial court found that because all of Mr. Buras’ claims against the defendants were covered by the release, there were no genuine issues of material fact and, therefore, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case without trial.

The law is well-settled that there is a heavy burden upon one who sets up a seaman’s release to show that it was executed freely, without deception or coercion, and that it was made by the seaman with full understanding of his rights and appreciation for the consequences. See, e.g., Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 240 (1942); Stipelcovich v. Sand Dollar Marine, Inc., 805 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1986);