Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana; December 27, 2017; Federal District Court
Claims were filed by Joseph C. Thibodeaux against Ensco Offshore Company under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law for injuries sustained on October 1, 2011, while serving as a deck foreman on the Ensco Rig 90. Thibodeaux alleges negligence and unseaworthiness, alongside a maintenance and cure claim under general maritime law, categorizing his claims as admiralty under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h). Jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. 1333.
Thibodeaux initiated the complaint on October 1, 2013, which was amended on May 18, 2015, to include the maintenance and cure claim. A non-jury trial began on September 12, 2016, and was taken under advisement by the court on September 14, 2016. The court required post-trial briefs from both parties, which were submitted on time.
Key stipulations included Ensco Offshore Company being the owner and operator of the Ensco Rig 90, responsible for negligence and unseaworthiness claims, and that Thibodeaux was a Jones Act seaman employed as a deck foreman. The authenticity of documents produced by Ensco was also agreed upon.
On the date of the incident, the crew, including Thibodeaux and the crane crew, worked to prepare the rig for relocation by lifting and storing heavy hoses. They conducted a pre-job safety meeting to discuss their roles and the task, which involved rigging hoses to the crane line and using hand signals to guide the crane operator in safely maneuvering the hoses into place.
The crane crew was nearing completion when a load swung towards the port aft leg jack house, striking the port side navigational light assembly. Upon impact, the angle irons supporting the assembly failed, causing the light assembly to fall and strike Thibodeaux on his left hip and knee, resulting in a significant hematoma, specifically a Morel-Lavallee lesion. Initially, Thibodeaux denied injury, but swelling prompted a medical examination. MRIs before and after the incident showed no change in his back, although he reported pain in multiple areas. Within days, his neck and knee pain subsided, and his treating physician noted improvement in the bruising to his hip. Despite the absence of objective symptoms, a herniated disc was later identified, leading to a surgical recommendation based on Thibodeaux's subjective pain complaints. Post-surgery, he initially improved but soon reported significant pain, coinciding with the cessation of narcotic medication, to which he had become reliant, according to his girlfriend. The court found Thibodeaux's testimony to be self-serving, noting he lacked awareness of how the light assembly fell and was distracted during the incident. Only one witness, roustabout Biggs, provided detailed observations, confirming Thibodeaux was not focused on the load, thus failing to signal properly. Medical evidence indicated an abrasion and severe bruising from the accident, with subsequent MRIs revealing a herniated disc at L4-5, leading to a recommendation for decompression and fusion surgery.
At Ensco's request, Thibodeaux underwent an examination by orthopedic spine specialist Dr. Neil Romero, who noted in a May 17, 2013 report that Thibodeaux denied back injuries since his October 1, 2011 accident. Dr. Romero attributed the worsening of Thibodeaux's pre-existing spinal condition at L4-5 to the accident and recommended an epidural injection to avoid surgery, while also agreeing with Dr. Blanda's suggestion for decompression and fusion if pain persisted. However, Dr. Romero indicated that surgery would not resolve Thibodeaux's hip pain, which was linked to a shearing injury and a Morel-Lavallee lesion.
After conservative treatments failed, Thibodeaux underwent the recommended surgery on July 29, 2015. Dr. Blanda did not perform an aspiration of the Morel-Lavallee lesion, agreeing with Dr. Romero that it had resolved. The court determined that Thibodeaux reached maximum medical improvement for his knee and hip bruising by October 18, 2011, for the Morel-Lavallee lesion by May 17, 2013, and for his back by September 13, 2016. While the court acknowledged significant injuries to Thibodeaux's hip and back from the accident, it found his pain complaints and disability claims to be insincere.
Thibodeaux claimed unrelenting pain over five years, yet admitted to engaging in activities such as long-distance driving and visiting casinos. Testimony from caregiver Fabian Hardy indicated Thibodeaux had good results from injections and surgery, contradicting Thibodeaux's claims of minimal relief. Discrepancies in his pain reports to different physicians led the court to question the credibility of his complaints. Thibodeaux also sought narcotic medication while stating that alcohol alleviated his pain, and he did not comply with Dr. Blanda's advice regarding his back brace.
Regarding his mental health, the only evidence came from psychologist Dr. LeCorgne, who began treating Thibodeaux in March 2015, nearly two and a half years post-accident. Despite Dr. Blanda's recommendation to seek help for his depression, Thibodeaux delayed until his attorney arranged the appointment. Dr. LeCorgne diagnosed him with PTSD and depression linked to the accident, describing his emotional state as stable with a fair prognosis dependent on his physical condition. He recommended an additional six to nine months of therapy for Thibodeaux's recovery.
Liability under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, permits injured seamen to sue their employers for negligence, which must be proven for recovery. Negligence can stem from various failures, including not providing a safe working environment, not inspecting for hazards, or failing to take necessary precautions. An employer's duty of care is absolute, non-delegable, and requires ordinary prudence. Liability arises only if the employer had notice of the unsafe condition and an opportunity to correct it. The standard for causation is "producing cause," meaning any negligence contributing to the injury suffices for liability, with a low burden of proof for the plaintiff. A seaman's own negligence may reduce their recovery, but it does not bar it; the defendant must prove the seaman's comparative negligence. Thibodeaux claims that Ensco was negligent for failing to maintain a safe work environment, specifically by not properly inspecting the navigational light shield assembly and safety cable, which led to unsafe conditions that contributed to his injury.
Thibodeaux submitted an expert report by Stephen Killingsworth, a mechanical engineer, who concluded that the NAV light assembly's attachment via tack welds rendered the rig unseaworthy. Killingsworth asserted that the maximum load the assembly could bear was significantly less than calculations made by Steve Doerr, a retired professional engineer from Ensco. Doerr, tasked with assessing the assembly's fitness for service post-accident, performed calculations on sheer and bending factors but did not evaluate the load capacity based on the tack welds, and no such calculations were found in the record.
Witnesses from Ensco, including electrician Chad Bonvillan, Barge Supervisor John Roberts, and Offshore Installation Manager Curtis Ellard, provided insight into the navigational light assembly's condition before the accident. Bonvillan, responsible for inspecting the port navigational light and safety cable, testified that he had not observed any issues with the light or its attachments. Roberts confirmed that inspections occurred regularly and that he never received complaints regarding the assembly's stability. Bonvillan and Roberts acknowledged that the safety cables were routinely checked, with no deterioration noted.
Ellard, despite his long tenure at Ensco, was perceived as biased and uncooperative, leading to less weight being given to his testimony about the accident. The evidence established that the light shield assembly was affixed by temporary tack welds and that the safety cable failed to prevent the assembly from falling and injuring Thibodeaux. However, there was no proof that Ensco neglected the maintenance of the light assembly or safety cable, or that any maintenance performed was unreasonable.
Ensco conducted regular maintenance and inspections of the navigational light assembly, and evidence indicated that these practices were not substandard. The temporary tack welds securing the light assembly had proven sufficient over thirty years, showing no signs of failure, despite saltwater exposure and the weight of inspectors. Thibodeaux did not demonstrate that Ensco was aware of any dangers posed by these tack welds. Additionally, Thibodeaux's claim of Ensco's breach of duty in providing a safe work area due to the absence of permanent welds was unsupported, as regular inspections revealed no issues with the welds.
Regarding safe practices, Thibodeaux failed to show that Ensco's method of storing take-on hoses was unreasonable, as witness testimony confirmed the storage method had not previously resulted in accidents. While a written job safety analysis (JSA) was required for the crew's first-time lift procedure, the court found that Puckett, the supervisor who conducted a verbal safety meeting, was not responsible for the accident despite not following the JSA policy. The crew had experience with similar lifts and participated in a pre-job meeting to discuss safety procedures, although this was not documented. Witnesses indicated Puckett was familiar with the tight working conditions, suggesting he acted appropriately given the circumstances.
No witness indicated that a written job safety analysis would have significantly changed the outcome compared to Puckett's verbal instructions. The court concluded that the results would remain the same regardless of who conducted the analysis. Puckett was found to have negligently maneuvered the crane left, despite credible testimony that Thibodeaux had turned away and stopped signaling. Puckett's actions were consistent with prior successful maneuvers, yet neither worker called for an 'all stop' despite having preventative responsibilities. The task was nearly complete, and they had previously executed it without incident multiple times, suggesting a lapse in caution led to a load striking the navigational light assembly.
Thibodeaux, under the Jones Act, is required to act with ordinary prudence. His injuries indicated that he turned away from the load, unaware of the impending danger, and he failed to respond to the warnings from his crew. Both Thibodeaux and Puckett bore the responsibility to issue a stop order, contributing to Thibodeaux's injuries, which the court attributed 50% to his own negligence.
Regarding unseaworthiness, Thibodeaux claimed that the Ensco 90 was unseaworthy due to the condition of its equipment, specifically citing that the port-side navigational light was inadequately attached and corroded. He argued the light shield was also unseaworthy due to being temporarily tack welded. In proving unseaworthiness, Thibodeaux must show that the equipment was not reasonably fit for its intended use, which does not demand perfection but reasonable suitability. If he demonstrates unseaworthiness, he must also prove that it was the proximate cause of his injury, meaning his injury was either a direct result of or a likely consequence of the unseaworthy condition. Evidence showed that the tack welding occurred 30 years prior, with no issues noted during quarterly inspections.
Ensco had no prior reports of navigational light shield assemblies falling from its jack-up rigs before the October 1, 2011 accident. The port-side navigational light shield assembly fell solely due to being struck by a load. No failure analysis was performed on the port-side navigational light, leaving no evidence to support claims of unseaworthiness regarding the tack welds. The evidence indicated that Thibodeaux's injury was primarily caused by his failure to maintain eye contact with the load and Puckett, rather than any defect in the navigational light. The Ensco 90 had operated for thirty years without incident, with the navigational light performing its intended function throughout. However, the safety cable meant to prevent the navigational light from falling was deemed not reasonably fit for its purpose, although this did not render the Ensco 90 unseaworthy. The court determined that Thibodeaux's injuries resulted from the combined negligence of both Ensco and Thibodeaux, with the safety cable's failure not contributing substantially to his injuries.
Regarding 'maintenance and cure' under maritime law, this compensation is provided to seamen injured while on duty, regardless of fault. To qualify for maintenance and cure, a seaman must demonstrate employment status, that the injury occurred during service, entitlement to wages, and incurred medical expenses. Maintenance includes daily living allowances, while cure covers medical costs, both owed until maximum cure is achieved, defined as the point where further treatment is unlikely to improve the condition. The court found Thibodeaux reached maximum medical improvement for his knee, hip, and back by specific dates. Ensco timely paid maintenance and cure throughout the trial, and since the Ensco 90 was not deemed unseaworthy, Thibodeaux is not entitled to past or future payments for Viagra. The document concludes by addressing whether social security disability payments can offset the maintenance and cure payments received by Thibodeaux.
No Fifth Circuit case directly addresses the offsetting of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments against maintenance and cure obligations. However, the collateral source rule, which prevents tortfeasors from reducing damages owed to plaintiffs based on independent recoveries, is discussed in the context of maintenance and cure. In Davis v. Odeco, Inc., the court clarified that the collateral source rule does not apply strictly in maintenance and cure scenarios, which are contractual rather than tort-based obligations.
The Fifth Circuit case Gauthier v. Crosby Marine Serv. Inc. explored whether medical insurance payments could offset maintenance and cure awards, concluding that if a seaman incurred no actual expenses, he could not recover maintenance and cure. Conversely, if a seaman independently purchased medical insurance, the shipowner could not offset payments from that insurance against maintenance and cure obligations.
The excerpt also references Delaware River, Bay Authority v. Kopacz, where the Third Circuit ruled that SSDI payments, intended to replace wages, could not offset maintenance and cure obligations. Thibodeaux argues for the application of this reasoning, while Ensco contends it is not applicable in the Fifth Circuit, which has not adopted an "exact equivalent" standard. The court ultimately declines to apply Delaware River's reasoning because the Fifth Circuit has not cited it, has not adopted the "exact equivalent" standard, and has found the collateral source rule incompatible with maintenance and cure principles. Thus, Thibodeaux’s SSDI contributions, shared between employee and employer, do not qualify him for an exception under these rules, as he did not "alone" pay into his SSDI credits.
Insufficient evidence exists regarding the amounts paid by Ensco toward Thibodeaux's SSDI credits, making it impossible to determine any offset owed to Ensco. Although Thibodeaux earned the required 20 credits for SSDI, his short employment with Ensco precluded him from earning all those credits there. Consequently, Thibodeaux's SSDI payments will not be offset.
Thibodeaux seeks both general and special damages, including compensation for pain, suffering, mental anguish, physical disability, loss of enjoyment of life, past and future medical expenses, and lost wages. The court acknowledges partial liability from Ensco and considers the extent of damages owed.
For medical expenses, Thibodeaux claims $4,134.93 in past and $11,739 in future expenses for Viagra, which the court denies, as there is no evidence linking it to his back condition. He is, however, entitled to $11,600 for other unpaid medical expenses, including physical therapy, a CT scan, follow-up visits, and pain management medication.
Regarding lost earnings, damages can be claimed for both past and future losses, typically calculated from the accident date to trial, using a four-step method established by the Fifth Circuit. Both parties presented expert economic reports that largely align, with some differences in projected cost of living increases.
The court determines that using the "reasonable range" for economic damages is more suitable than a 2.5% increase, which it finds excessive. Drs. Boudreaux and Page provided a detailed report presenting two economic damage calculations: one based on Thibodeaux's annual income of $57,437.33, and another reflecting a speculative 25% income reduction due to the oil and gas industry's downturn since 2014. The court adopts the first calculation, resulting in a past income loss of $217,382.57. For future earnings, the court considers Dr. Blanda's testimony, which indicates Thibodeaux would complete treatment two years post-trial without significant limitations, calculating future losses at $114,874.66.
Thibodeaux's medical condition includes persistent pain from a Morel-Lavallee lesion following surgery, with a causal link to the accident established by a preponderance of evidence. The court awards $320,000 for general damages based on research from both parties.
Regarding prejudgment interest, the court has discretion under its admiralty jurisdiction. However, it denies such an award as Thibodeaux received maintenance and cure payments during the trial and did not attempt to mitigate his economic damages.
In conclusion, the court rules in favor of Thibodeaux against Ensco, awarding a total of $331,928.62 after assessing Thibodeaux's comparative fault at 50%, resulting in total damages of $663,857.23. The parties are instructed to submit an agreed judgment reflecting this ruling within ten days. The case involved the Ensco 90, a jack-up rig, with testimony highlighting inconsistencies regarding the accident's circumstances and witnesses.
