Cruise Ship Law

MICHAEL GROS VERSUS FRED SETTOON, INC.

03-461
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT
03-461 (La.App. 3 Cir, 12/23/03); 2003 La. App. LEXIS 3602
December 23, 2003, Opinions Rendered

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Martin (Louisiana), granted summary judgment to appellee employer dismissing appellant claimant's Jones Act claims for negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure because the claimant received benefits under 33 U.S.C.S. § 905(b) of the Longshoreman's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The claimant appealed.

OVERVIEW: The claimant alleged that he severely injured his back while attempting to lift and hold up a heavy load while working on a barge owned by the employer. The barge allegedly shifted and rolled due to the weight and movement of the operation. The employer filed a motion for partial summary judgment contending that all of the claimant's claims based on seaman status should be dismissed because of his voluntary receipt of LHWCA benefits. The claimant argued that the question of seaman status was never litigated during the trial for longshoreman's benefits, and therefore, he was entitled to a determination of his seaman status. The trial court granted the employer's partial motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claimant's Jones Act claims. Although the LHWCA credit provision did ostensibly prevent double recovery for the claimant, a real possibility existed that the employer could be forced to engage in repetitious litigation. Despite that possibility, the credit provision of the LHWCA clearly indicated an intent on Congress's part to allow for recovery under both the LHWCA and the Jones Act. Thus, the dismissal of the claimant's Jones Act claims was improper.