Cruise Ship Law

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST JONES ACT SEAMAN DENIED WHERE SEAMAN PROVIDED EXPERT MEDICAL TESTIMONY ESTABLISHING A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN SEAMAN'S INJURIES AND INCIDENT ON THE VESSEL EVEN IN LIGHT OF EVIDENCE THAT INJURY PRE-EXISTED INCIDENT AND ALLEGATIONS THAT SEAMAN'S EXPERT MEDICAL TESTIMONY WAS BASED ON INCORRECT AND FALSE INFORMATION

DANIEL GINTHER VERSUS SEA SUPPORT SERVICES L.L.C., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

CIVIL ACTION No. 00-2928 SECTION "K
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21225
December 12, 2001, Decided
December 12, 2001, Filed
December 13, 2001, Entered

PRIOR HISTORY: None.

DISPOSITION: [*1] Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment DENIED.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants, employing vessel owner and its insurer, moved for partial summary judgment on the claims of plaintiff injured seaman brought under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688. The owner and insurer asserted that the seaman could not establish that his cervical injuries occurred during his employment because uncontroverted facts showed the injury was pre-existing.

OVERVIEW: The seaman alleged that he injured his neck on or about August 16, 2000, when he fell down stairs while going below deck to the engine room. He had surgery after the fall. However, the employer and insurer presented evidence that he had suffered a herniated cervical disk and was referred to a neurosurgeon on February 17, 2000, and before he began working for the employer. The seaman presented the expert testimony of a physician that there could be a causal connection between his injuries and his fall while employed. The owner argued that evidence should be disregarded because the medical opinion was based on incorrect and false information. The court noted the physician also stated that the seaman's condition was worsened from a compression of the nerve root to a compression of the spinal cord, and necessitated the surgery. He based his opinion on the data and the information that neurosurgeons typically rely, and raised an issue sufficient to deny summary judgment.

OUTCOME: The motion for partial summary judgment was denied, because there was an issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff's neck injuries were caused during his employment with defendant.