Cruise Ship Law

JOSEPH LODRIGUE VERSUS DELTA TOWING, L.L.C.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 03-0363 SECTION: "R"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22933
December 19, 2003, Decided
December 19, 2003, Filed
December 22, 2003, Entered

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In response to plaintiff seaman's motion for an expedited trial of his maintenance and cure claims against defendant shipowner, the court held a trial on the seaman's maintenance and cure claim severed from his claims alleging Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness of a vessel. The seaman also requested compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees.

OVERVIEW: The seaman slipped and fell while working as a captain on the vessel. The shipowner paid for the seaman's initial medical expenses, but the seaman was discharged from employment two months after the accident because he gave a false excuse for an absence. When an orthopedic surgeon subsequently recommended surgery, the shipowner denied the seaman's request for maintenance and cure. The court held that the seaman was entitled to maintenance and cure because he advanced credible medical testimony as to his back and knee injuries and potential for medical improvement. Although the shipowner presented contrary evidence from a qualified physician who testified that the seaman had reached maximum medical improvement, the court found that the testimony merely raised doubts as to the seaman's entitlement to maintenance and cure, which the court was required to resolve in favor of the seaman. Although the seaman did not disclose a pre-existing knee injury during a pre-employment physical, the court found that the shipowner failed to show that the injury would have affected its decision to hire the seaman. No damages or attorney fees were assessed because the denial was not unreasonable.

OUTCOME: The court held that the seaman was entitled to maintenance and cure and that he was entitled to prejudgment interest on the award. The court held that the seaman was not entitled to compensatory damages or attorney fees. The court sustained the seaman's objection to the admissibility of bills of information that charged the seaman with issuing worthless checks.