Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana; August 27, 2015; Federal District Court
A Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was filed by Harvey Gulf International Marine, LLC, with the Court granting it in part and denying it in part. The case involves Martin Wimberly, who was employed by Harvey Gulf after it acquired his former employer, Abdon Calíais. Wimberly completed a medical questionnaire and physical evaluations upon hiring, where he denied having back or neck issues but later admitted to experiencing back pain without providing further explanation. On January 2, 2014, he sustained severe injuries while working aboard the M/V HARVEY SAINT, allegedly due to the defendant's negligence and the vessel's unseaworthiness. Wimberly subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming negligence, unseaworthiness, and failure to provide maintenance and cure benefits, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Harvey Gulf sought partial summary judgment, arguing Wimberly could not prove essential elements of his claims. The Court granted summary judgment regarding Wimberly's claim for failure to pay maintenance and cure benefits, based on his misrepresentation of prior medical conditions, invoking the McCorpen defense. The Court is now reviewing the relevant facts, arguments, and legal standards related to the motion.
Summary Judgment is granted when the evidence shows no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as established in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. A genuine issue exists if reasonable evidence could lead a jury to favor the nonmoving party. The court evaluates facts favorably for the nonmoving party and does not assess credibility or weigh evidence. To successfully oppose summary judgment, the nonmoving party must provide specific evidence rather than mere assertions. The moving party bears the initial burden to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
In this case, Harvey Gulf argues that Wimberly is ineligible for maintenance and cure benefits due to his concealment of significant medical history, referencing McCorpen v. Central Gulf S.S. Corp. Under legal obligations, vessel owners must provide maintenance and cure to injured or ill seamen. This includes food, lodging, and medical care until maximum recovery is achieved. The McCorpen ruling states that the obligation ceases if a seaman intentionally conceals past medical issues during pre-hiring examinations. To invoke this defense, the employer must demonstrate three elements: the seaman's intentional misrepresentation or concealment, the materiality of the omitted facts to the hiring decision, and a causal link between the prior and current injuries. Harvey Gulf claims Wimberly concealed his medical history by not disclosing past back and neck pain on medical questionnaires, thereby forfeiting his right to maintenance and cure benefits.
In McCorpen, the Fifth Circuit ruled that a seaman who intentionally misrepresents or conceals material medical facts during a required pre-hiring medical examination is ineligible for maintenance and cure benefits. The court applies an objective standard, requiring the employer to demonstrate that the seaman failed to disclose medical information in a questionnaire designed to elicit such details. In Meche, the court affirmed that a new employer can rely on previously acquired medical forms after an asset sale, without absolving a seaman from the consequences of prior concealments.
Wimberly contends that he did not conceal any prior disabilities since he answered affirmatively regarding occasional back pain, and maintains that a genuine issue exists about whether he had any prior disabling conditions, citing a passed functional capacity exam and only minor past injuries. He argues that Harvey Gulf's use of their own medical questionnaire distinguishes his case from Meche. Regarding allegations of misrepresenting his history of depression, Wimberly asserts he fully disclosed this in his medical questionnaire.
However, evidence contradicts Wimberly's claims about his neck and back issues. Records reveal he reported chronic neck pain and degenerative joint disease in 2010, along with a history of severe neck pain and nerve issues, which he failed to disclose to his employers. Although Wimberly claims his back pain was temporary and not significant, his medical records indicate a history of chronic back problems, including a vertebral fracture and ongoing pain from a previous fall, with documented complaints and a recommendation for physical therapy that he did not complete.
Wimberly's back issues, although not consistently disabling, constitute a history of "back trouble" similar to the case of Brown v. Parker Drilling Corp. In that case, the Fifth Circuit recognized a pattern of back strains and soreness as significant. Wimberly's medical history reflects his understanding of his chronic back problems; however, he failed to disclose this history in a medical questionnaire provided to Abdon Calíais. While Harvey Gulf exaggerated the number of visits Wimberly made for back and neck pain, his medical records confirm a clear history of such issues.
The court emphasizes that failure to accurately answer medical questions can result in forfeiting a seaman’s right to maintenance and cure, citing relevant case law. Wimberly’s vague acknowledgment of frequent back pain without elaboration parallels instances where other seamen concealed disabilities. Despite his extensive admissions to his doctor since 2006, Wimberly did not disclose this information to his employers, particularly not mentioning any back pain just six months after receiving significant treatment for a lower back strain and compression fracture. Although Wimberly claimed he was unaware of the fracture until the lawsuit, medical records indicate he was previously informed about it. The court cannot evaluate credibility, but Wimberly's failure to disclose his comprehensive history of back and neck issues demonstrates an objective intent to conceal, satisfying the criteria for concealment of "back trouble" as established in Brown.
Harvey Gulf successfully demonstrated that Wimberly's misrepresentations regarding his neck and back conditions met the concealment requirement for summary judgment, although his history of depression did not. For the McCorpen defense to be valid, it must show that the misrepresentations were material to the hiring decision. The court noted that Harvey Gulf and Abdon Calíais asked specific medical questions related to applicants’ back and neck injuries, which were pertinent to the duties of a deckhand. Declarations from both companies indicated that they would have probed further into Wimberly's medical history had he disclosed more information. Wimberly did not contest the relevance of the questions but argued that his prior year of incident-free work and successful physical examination should negate materiality. However, similar arguments were dismissed in Brown v. Parker Drilling, affirming that hiring decisions are based on past injuries rather than current capabilities.
Regarding the causal connection, Harvey Gulf argued that Wimberly's past injuries were related to his current injuries, as both involved the back and neck. The McCorpen defense requires proving a link between the concealed pre-existing disability and the disability incurred during employment. The Fifth Circuit clarified that the present and prior injuries do not need to be identical or the sole cause but must affect the same body part. Evidence showed that similar past and present injuries could establish causality, even if they involve different specific locations within the same area. Thus, Harvey Gulf's arguments regarding both materiality and causation were substantiated, with no genuine issues of material fact remaining.
In Weatherford v. Nabors Offshore Corp., the court granted summary judgment based on causality due to the plaintiff, Wimberly, concealing prior lower back injuries related to his current claim of pain in that area. Wimberly's medical records indicate he suffers from moderate degenerative disc disease and spondylosis with central annular tears at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels, along with a chronic moderate T12 compression fracture. His history includes multiple instances of lower back pain and injuries, such as a 2006 back sprain from a fall, chronic pain reported in late 2010, and various medical visits for back issues leading to a diagnosis of an L1 vertebral body wedge compression fracture. Wimberly argued that his previous injuries were minor and not causally linked to his current disc problems. However, the court noted that while the prior injuries were not identical to the current condition, they were located in the same body part, establishing a causal link. The court referenced similar cases, asserting that causality can be established even if prior injuries are not the sole cause of the current condition, as long as they affect the same anatomical area. Wimberly's neck pain history also demonstrated a connection to his current neck disc injuries. Ultimately, the court found that Wimberly did not present evidence to dispute the causal relationship, allowing Harvey Gulf to successfully argue that there were no genuine material facts in dispute, thus satisfying the summary judgment requirement concerning the causality of the McCorpen defense.
The Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court grants the motion regarding the Plaintiff's claims for maintenance and cure related to back and neck injuries, but denies it concerning the Plaintiff's claim of depression. The decision references multiple records and documents that outline the Plaintiff's medical history, including treatments and diagnoses from various medical facilities. Notably, the Plaintiff did not initially indicate a diagnosis of depression but later provided a complete account of this condition after the death of a family member. Additionally, the Plaintiff's historical medical records reveal awareness of past neck issues, despite a lack of complaints during a specific medical visit. The findings highlight a pattern of prior injuries and ongoing medical conditions relevant to the claims made by the Plaintiff.
