McMEIL v. Jantran, Inc.

Citations: 258 F. Supp. 2d 926; 2003 A.M.C. 689; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7113; 2003 WL 1948008Docket: 02-2045

Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas; March 13, 2003; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves Raymond McNeil as the plaintiff against Jantran, Inc. and other railroad defendants, heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on March 13, 2003. The plaintiff sought a retroactive and future increase in maintenance rates, which the court granted for the interim period pending trial, while preserving the defendants' right to present their defenses.

McNeil was employed by Jantran since November 11, 1997, and had a pre-employment medical evaluation indicating no prior back issues. On July 11, 2001, while serving as first mate aboard the M/V Mr. Tom, he fell approximately six feet during an incident involving the vessel striking a bridge. After the fall, he reported back and shoulder pain to the captain and completed relevant paperwork. The vessel's captain and crew did not suspect drug or alcohol involvement in the incident, which was attributed to the allision with the bridge.

Following the incident, McNeil was treated at Sparks Regional Hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute myofascial strain and a shoulder contusion, with no signs of intoxication noted by the attending physician.

Jantran did not administer a drug test for the Plaintiff despite a timely request, and the Plaintiff was released from Sparks Hospital the same day. After re-boarding the Mr. Tom at mile mark 319, the Plaintiff was confined to bed rest and later transported to Mississippi. On July 13, 2001, Jantran referred him to Dr. Don Blackwood for follow-up treatment and a drug test. During the visit, the Plaintiff refused the drug test, became disruptive, and insisted on contacting his attorney, ultimately leaving without being examined by Dr. Blackwood. The doctor reviewed X-rays of the Plaintiff's back and shoulder, finding no fractures or abnormalities. The Plaintiff later sought treatment from other physicians, receiving a diagnosis of a torn rotator cuff and a recommendation for surgery due to a lumbar disc herniation, which he has been unable to pursue due to financial issues. Currently, the Plaintiff is not working, and Jantran has withheld maintenance and cure payments since the incident.

The court notes a lack of precedent concerning the Plaintiff's motion for retroactive and future maintenance rate increases, treating it similarly to a motion for summary judgment. The court's findings will be preliminary, with any relief granted being temporary until a final judgment is reached. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine disputes over material facts, and the court must view evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. The nonmoving party must present specific facts to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial.

The duty of maintenance and cure for seamen arises from historical maritime codes, entailing two components: maintenance, which covers living expenses while recovering ashore, and cure, which includes medical costs related to injuries or illnesses. Shipowners are required to provide these benefits until the seaman reaches maximum medical improvement, defined as either full recovery or a determination of permanent and incurable condition. This obligation exists regardless of the shipowner's fault, with the sole exception being instances of the seaman's willful misconduct. 

Legal precedents affirm that a shipowner's duty to provide maintenance and cure is independent of negligence, meaning that factors like comparative fault or assumptions of risk do not diminish the seaman's rights to recovery. A shipowner may not unreasonably deny maintenance and cure; liability escalates with the nature of the denial, potentially leading to compensatory and punitive damages if callousness is demonstrated. To establish a claim for maintenance and cure, a plaintiff must show he was employed as a seaman, suffered an injury related to that employment, and incurred related expenses. Any uncertainties regarding a seaman's entitlement are resolved in their favor.

In the case at hand, the plaintiff, a first mate, testified to a back and shoulder injury incurred while working, resulting in an inability to return to work and associated living expenses. The shipowner, Jantran, did not contest the plaintiff's basic entitlement to maintenance and cure, acknowledging his employment status during the incident. For the maintenance rate, the plaintiff must provide evidence of necessary living expenses during recovery, after which the burden shifts to the shipowner to contest this evidence.

Plaintiff's affidavit detailing monthly living expenses of $745 establishes a prima facie case for maintenance. Jantran presents three defenses against the shipowner's duty to pay maintenance: (1) willful misconduct, (2) willful failure to disclose, and (3) refusal of medical treatment, with the burden on Jantran to provide evidence supporting these defenses. If Jantran raises a factual question regarding any defense, the motion should be denied; if not, the defense fails.

For willful misconduct, the seaman's gross negligence or willful disobedience can negate maintenance claims, as established in case law. However, Jantran lacks direct evidence linking Plaintiff's injury to any alleged drug or alcohol use, as the mere failure to submit to a drug test does not suffice to establish causation.

Regarding willful concealment, a vessel owner is not liable for maintenance if the seaman intentionally conceals important medical information that is causally linked to the injury. Jantran shows that Plaintiff failed to disclose prior injuries—a significant back injury in 1992 and a pulled hamstring in 1990—on his pre-employment application. While there is some basis to infer intentional misrepresentation, establishing a causal link between these past injuries and the current medical issues of lumbar disc herniation and torn rotator cuff is less convincing.

Jantran has failed to provide evidence supporting the claim that Plaintiff would not have been hired if all facts were disclosed, thus not creating a genuine issue regarding the materiality of the facts. Consequently, Plaintiff's entitlement to maintenance and cure cannot be denied based on willful concealment. A seaman may forfeit maintenance and cure rights due to unreasonable refusal of medical care offered by the employer, but the employer is not obliged to honor a seaman's preference for private treatment. If an employer offers care from a private physician, a seaman may seek treatment from another doctor without breaching the obligation to mitigate damages, as compensation should not exceed what would have been incurred under the employer's recommendation. Jantran contends that Plaintiff's departure from Dr. Blackwood's office constituted an unreasonable refusal of medical care, but this argument is rejected. Since Dr. Blackwood is a private physician, continuing under his care would have incurred costs for Jantran, and no evidence was presented to suggest that Plaintiff’s chosen treatment was unnecessary or more costly than remaining with Dr. Blackwood. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for maintenance and cure payments is granted, with Jantran required to pay $26.61 per day retroactive to July 13, 2001, until either maximum recovery is achieved or the trial date. Jantran must also cover Plaintiff's medical expenses until the same endpoints. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is denied for now, but the issue will be revisited at trial. Jantran retains the right to present defenses during the trial, which is scheduled for the week of September 22, 2003.