GENERAL DAMAGES AWARD OF $750,000 FOR SEAMAN WHOSE FOOT WAS CRUSHED WAS EXCESSIVE UNDER MAXIMUM RECOVERY RULE AS IT WAS MORE THAN 133% OF HIGHEST RECOVERY HAD IN LOUISIANA FOR SIMILAR INJURY. EMPLOYER WAS REQUIRED TO PAY MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR UNCERTAIN
TERRY LEJEUNE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING INC, Defendant-Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 22205
September 17, 2007, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant employer sought review of a judgment from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, which entered a judgment of $ 1,800,000 in damages and maintenance and cure in favor of appellee seaman in his suit, brought pursuant to the Jones Act and general maritime law, to recover damages for an injury he suffered while working as a crew member on the employer's drilling vessel.
OVERVIEW: A valve fell on the seaman's foot, crushing his metatarsal bone and peroneal nerve, causing soft tissue injuries, and causing the seaman to suffer Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. On appeal, the court held that (1) the district court erred in admitting into evidence its own extrajudicial observations about the seaman's significant pain, but the error was harmless because the district court's decision was based on evidence that was properly admitted; (2) the general damages award of $ 750,000 was excessive under the maximum recovery rule because it was more than 133% of the highest recovery received in Louisiana for a similar injury; (3) the award of $ 744,108 for lost future wages had to be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's conclusion that the seaman would eventually be able to return only to part-time work, as such conclusion was based only on the seaman's testimony that he could not sit or stand for very long; and (4) the district court did not err in requiring the employer to pay maintenance and cure for an uncertain period of time because it was not known when the seaman would reach maximum medical improvement.
OUTCOME: The court ordered a remittitur of the general damages award to $ 400,000. The court reversed the award for future lost wages and remanded the matter for recalculation. The court reversed the future damages award as it pertained to costs for doctor visits and remanded the matter for recalculation. Finally, the court affirmed the future cure obligation.
