Cruise Ship Law: Shipowner Being Sued Under Jones Act, For Unseaworthiness And Maintenance And Cure Had It's Third Party Claim Against Medical Facility Dismissed Since Issues Of Medical Negligence Would Have Unduly Complicated The Seaman's Case

MARK P. DISHONG, Plaintiff, v. PEABODY CORP., Defendant andThird-Party Plaintiff, v. TIDEWATER ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES, INC. and TIDEWATERPHYSICAL THERAPY, INC., Third-Party Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:03cv107
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, NEWPORT NEWS DIVISION
219 F.R.D. 382; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22348
December 12, 2003, Decided
December 12, 2003, Opinion Filed

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman sued defendant shipowner for injuries sustained due to the shipowner's alleged negligence and the unseaworthiness of the shipowner's vessel. The seaman sought maintenance and cure. The shipowner filed a third-party complaint against third-party defendant medical facilities seeking contribution and indemnification for all liability. The medical facilities moved for a more definite statement and to strike the third-party complaint.

OVERVIEW: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 14, the court did not permit the shipowner to implead the medical facilities because introduction of the third-party claims would have unduly complicated the case, possibly to the prejudice of the seaman and the medical facilities. Specifically, even if the shipowner was permitted to recover maintenance and cure payments made to the seaman from the medical facilities whose alleged negligence caused the seaman's disability, that theory of recovery would have required the shipowner to prove that the medical facilities were tortfeasors. In other words, the shipowner would have to prove that the medical facilities' medical malpractice was the cause of the seaman's damages for maintenance and cure. The issues involved in medical malpractice were unrelated to those presented by the seaman and almost all of the evidence that would have been relevant to the medical malpractice claim had no connection to the seaman's claims. Thus, permitting the third-party claim to remain in the lawsuit would not have served the purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 and would likely have prejudiced the seaman and the medical facilities.

OUTCOME: The third-party complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The medical facilities' pending motions were moot.