SEAMAN'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW DENIED AFTER JURY FOUND FOR EMPLOYER ON JONES ACT CLAIM BASED ON SEAMAN FALLING WHILE GROGGY DUE TO MEDICATION TAKEN AT THE DIRECTION OF SHIP'S MEDICAL OFFICER
MICHAEL J. SCARDINA versus MAERSK LINE, LTD.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-1512 SECTION: E/2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23135
November 27, 2002, Decided
December 2, 2002, Filed
December 3, 2002, Entered
DISPOSITION: Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, alternatively, for New Trial denied.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee moved for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial after the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant employer in the employee's claims for injuries allegedly caused when he fell on a raised stepping block on the employer's ship while he was groggy due to medication taken at the direction of the employer's medical officer.
OVERVIEW: The court found that while there was certainly conflicting testimony and evidence before the jury, the jury was entitled to accept some testimony and evidence, and reject other testimony and evidence. The jury's verdict was entitled to appropriate deference and there was substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict. Even presuming that the employee's complaints of back pain were real, the jury could have concluded that his back pain was due to some other aggravation of a pre-existing condition, and not to a fall as he described it. Conflicting evidence was presented relative to the employee's attitude and work habits and during voir dire, all jurors indicated that they had taken Benadryl, and that none had fallen as a result of taking the Benadryl. Finally, based on all of the evidence before it, the jury could have reasonably concluded, without impermissibly resolving any ambiguities in favor of the employee, that the employer properly investigated the employee's demand for aquatherapy, and reasonably refused to provide such cure.
OUTCOME: The employee's motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial was denied.
