Cruise Ship Law

MELODEE WHITMAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. RICK MILES, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 04-1117
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
387 F.3d 68; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22624
October 28, 2004, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant seaman challenged a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Maine, which entered judgment in favor of appellee employer in a claim for maintenance and cure.

OVERVIEW: The seaman was taken to the hospital after falling, suffering a burn, and experiencing other symptoms. Following testing, the seaman was diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Thereafter, she sought maintenance and cure payments. After summary judgment was granted in favor of the employer, the seaman sought review. In affirming, the court determined that the employer was only required to pay maintenance and cure until the condition had stabilized and further progress had ended. The court rejected the argument that the condition could have been improved through treatment. Although the symptoms could have been alleviated, there was no cure for MS. Further, there was no need for any physician to use the word "permanent" in the diagnosis. The seaman's asymptomatic status did not mean that her overall condition had improved; therefore, the district court did not err by setting the date of maximum improvement shortly after the diagnosis. In addition, the seaman was unable to recover maintenance and cure for her depression. She was unable to show that it started while in the service of a ship or that it was a symptom of MS. Finally, attorney's fees were not awarded.

OUTCOME: The decision was affirmed.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 5:45 PM | Permalink

KENNETH LONG, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Action No: 2:04cv82
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OFVIRGINIA, NORFOLK DIVISION
339 F. Supp. 2d 729; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20881
October 6, 2004, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff former steward was injured while working in the walk-in freezer of a vessel and filed an action against defendant United States, alleging claims under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688, and a claim that the vessel operated by the United States was unseaworthy. The United States filed a motion for summary judgment.

OVERVIEW: The steward was injured when he was in a walk-in freezer and a piece of frozen meat fell and landed on the steward's foot. The steward claimed that the United States, as the owner of the vessel, was negligent under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. § 688, because the meat in the vessel was improperly stored, secured, and inspected. The steward alleged a claim that the vessel was unseaworthy for the same reasons. The court denied the United States' motion for summary judgment. The court held that there was a genuine factual controversy relating to the Jones Act claim so that summary judgment was not appropriate. The parties disputed who was responsible for the negligence that caused the steward's injury, particularly when the steward had been charged with securing items in the freezer. The court noted that the same factual disputes made summary judgment on the claim of unseaworthiness inappropriate. The steward provided evidence that other ships used for long voyages had larger freezers. The court rejected the United States' assertion that the primary duty rule acted as a complete bar to the steward's claims.

OUTCOME: The court denied the United States' motion for summary judgment.

Posted by Lipcon Law Firm at 5:44 PM | Permalink