A Seaman Who Fraudulently Concealed Preexisting Back And Mental Health Problems On His Application To Work As A Deckhand On An Oceangoing Tug Was Properly Denied Maintenance And Cure Benefits Under The Mccorpen Rule But Properly Awarded Damages For Medica
JON ANTHONY JAUCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NAUTICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27879
November 9, 2006, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, an American seaman, brought an action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688, against defendant, an American employer, for personal injuries allegedly occurring while the seaman was working aboard one of the employer's vessels. The employer filed an opposed motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) and an alternate motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3).
OVERVIEW: On his employment application to work as a deckhand on an oceangoing tug, the seaman concealed his preexisting back injury and lengthy history of psychiatric treatment. The district court found he had not been instructed in the proper procedure for helping to lower a johnboat to a lower deck, which caused him to suffer a back injury that eventually required surgery, but that he also had not asked how to perform the task and had not remained attentive while performing it. On appeal, the court held that, because the seaman had fraudulently concealed his preexisting medical conditions, the district court correctly applied the McCorpen rule in denying his claim for maintenance and cure benefits. The district court's apportionment of equal fault was not clearly erroneous. The award of damages for medical expenses under the Jones Act was independent of the seaman's maintenance and cure claim. However, the record was insufficient for the court to review whether the district court had correctly calculated damages or had properly denied prejudgment interest.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's order denying the seaman's claim for maintenance and cure and apportioning fault equally between the seaman and the employer, vacated the award of past medical expenses and the denial of prejudgment interest, and remanded to allow the district court to consider the claims further and to provide more detailed analysis and reasons for its decisions.
Bookmark: 
