Summary Judgment for seaman's employer reversed where injured seaman failed to disclose prior back injury which occurred shortly before he began working for employer...
Summary Judgment for seaman's employer reversed where injured seaman failed to disclose prior back injury which occurred shortly before he began working for employer but where injured seaman presented sufficient evidence to create a fact issue about whether the employer would hired him if he had fully disclosed the medical facts of his back injuries and that there was a shortage of available workers aboard the vessel.
Robert N. Britton, Appellant, v. U.S.S. Great Lakes Fleet, Inc., Appellee.
No. 01-3567
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
302 F.3d 812; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18437
June 10, 2002, Submitted
September 9, 2002, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Britton v. U.S.S. Great Lakes Fleet, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17804 (D. Minn. Oct. 15, 2001).
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In a maritime law case, plaintiff deckhand sued defendant employer, seeking recovery of maintenance and cure, and damages for negligence under the Jones Act and for unseaworthiness. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The deckhand appealed.
OVERVIEW: The district court held that (1) the deckhand's failure to disclose to the employer a back injury the deckhand had suffered shortly before he began working for the employer precluded the deckhand from obtaining maintenance and cure; (2) the deckhand's testimony about the number of available hands on deck at the time of his injury was insufficient to create an issue of material fact regarding his Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims; and (3) the deckhand failed to present evidence that the doctors who treated him committed malpractice. The appeals court disagreed. The deckhand presented sufficient evidence to create a fact issue about whether the employer would hired him if he had fully disclosed the medical facts of his back injuries. The deckhand's testimony that a shortage of deckhands required him to perform work that was too strenuous for one person to manage, aggravating his back injury, was sufficient to create a material fact dispute regarding both his Jones Act and his unseaworthiness claims. Finally, the deckhand produced sufficient evidence to create an issue of material fact to allow his negligent assignment claim to survive summary judgment and proceed before a jury.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
