SEAMAN'S AWARD FOR PAST AND FUTURE MAINTENANCE VACATED WHERE SEAMAN HAD NOT YET REACHED MAXIMUM MEDICAL CURE AND JURY COULD NOT ACCOUNT FOR POSSIBILITY OF REACHING MAXIMUM MEDICAL CURE PRIOR TO THE END OF SEAMAN'S ESTIMATED WORKING LIFE.
TANNOUS L. BACHIR, Plaintiff, -against- TRANSOCEANIC CABLE SHIP COMPANY and C. S. LONG LINES, L.P., Defendants.
98 Civ. 4625 (JFK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4340
March 15, 2002, Decided
March 15, 2002, Filed
DISPOSITION: Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law granted in part and denied in part. Future maintenance award vacated. Defendants' motion for new trial denied in all respects.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman sued defendant shipowners, alleging that the shipowners were liable for maintenance and cure for injuries the seaman suffered while working aboard the shipowners' vessel. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the seaman, and the shipowners moved for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
OVERVIEW: The shipowners contended that the lump sum award for future maintenance was based on the erroneous finding that the seaman had not reached maximum cure, and that the past maintenance rate was limited to the collective bargaining agreement rate. The shipowners also argued that expert medical testimony was erroneous and improperly admitted, and that the award for pain and suffering was excessive. The court first held that, while the evidence supported the finding that the seaman had not reached maximum cure, the future maintenance award based on the seaman's estimated working life failed to account for the possibility of prior maximum cure. Further, the maintenance rate provided by the collective bargaining agreement was clearly inadequate, but the seaman failed to provide evidence to determine a proper past maintenance award. Nonetheless, the shipowners had a full opportunity to challenge the diagnosis that the seaman's accident caused psychological problems, and the alleged prior fraud of one expert was too remote in time to be probative of the truthfulness of the witness. Finally, the jury's award for pain and suffering, while substantial, was not excessive
OUTCOME: The shipowners' motion for judgment as a matter of law was granted in part with regard to the lump sum future maintenance and past maintenance awards, but the motion was otherwise denied. The shipowners' motion for a new trial was denied.
