Seaman who failed to report injury aboard vessel still entitled to maintain claim of Jones Act negligence; however, seaman's claim of emotional distress due to harassment without physical manifestation of those emotional injuries was dismissed.
KIM E. GARDNER VERSUS WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP.
CIVIL ACTION NO: 01-3224 SECTION: "J"(5)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17929
September 20, 2002, Decided
September 23, 2002, Filed; September 23, 2002, Entered
DISPOSITION: Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted in part. Plaintiff's Jones Act claim for emotional injuries suffered as result of harassment dismissed.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman's complaint, brought under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law, alleged that she suffered emotional injuries as a result of harassment by her supervisor and co-employees, and a physical injury as the result of a slip and fall on the deck of defendant's vessel, while working for the defendant owner. The seaman also sought maintenance and cure. The owner moved for summary judgment.
OVERVIEW: The owner moved for summary judgment based on two arguments: (1) the seaman had failed to present any evidence of physical injury while working aboard the vessel; and (2) the seaman was not entitled to maintenance and cure because she intentionally concealed the fact that she was taking certain medications from her employer. While the court noted that the seaman's deposition testimony that she was injured might not be overwhelming to a jury or translate into huge damages, it did represent a material fact issue which precluded summary judgment on the question whether the seaman suffered a physical injury as a result of a slip and fall on defendant's vessel. The court further held that absent evidence of a physical manifestation of her emotional injuries the seaman could not recover under the Jones Act for damages due to harassment on the vessel. Accordingly, her Jones Act claim for compensatory damages for harassment was dismissed. Lastly, the court did not find that there was any intentional concealment or misrepresentation by the seaman as to the medication she was taking, and thus the owner had failed to satisfy the requirements of McCorpen to deny her maintenance and cure.
OUTCOME: The vessel owner's motion for summary judgment was granted in part. The seaman's Jones Act claim for emotional injuries suffered as a result of harassment was dismissed. The motion was denied in all other respects.
