HomeCircuit Court Admiralty CasesMaintenance & Cure
Maintenance & Cure

The following are digests and case links to Circuit Court Admiralty Cases that have as an issue maintenance & cure:

Hall v. Noble Drilling
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
February  22, 2001 (Revised)

Maintenance & Cure: the District Court correctly calculated the maintenance amount due plaintiff based on his total monthly mortgage payment rather than prorating the monthly mortgage by family members.

Greenwell v. Aztar Indiana Gaming Co.
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
October 4, 2001

Jones Act/Maintenance & Cure: since plaintiff casino boat employee dropped her allegation that she had had been injured at work onboard the vessel, her medical malpractice claim against her employer, which was based the employer's Jones Act and maintenance & cure obligations and the doctrine of respondeat superior, should have been dismissed on the merits; Procedure: plaintiff did not allege an admiralty claim under Rule 9(h) and thus could not use the third party vouching in mechanism of Rule 14(c), but this did not prevent her from using the non-admiralty third party claim procedure under Rule 14(a). 

Britton v. U.S.S Great Lakes Fleet
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
September 9, 2002

Maintenance & Cure: Where a seaman is required to provide pre-employment
medical information, and he intentionally misrepresents or conceals material medical facts, he is not entitled to an award of maintenance and cure if the injury incurred is causally linked to the concealed medical condition. However, the employer must show that the non-disclosed medical information was material to its decision to hire the seaman to successfully defend against maintenance and cure. Since there was an issue of fact in this case whether the non-disclosed condition was material to the owner's decision to hire plaintiff, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim on motion for summary judgment. Seaworthiness: Unseaworthiness is a claim under general maritime law based on the vessel owner’s duty to ensure that the vessel is reasonably fit to be at sea. The warranty of seaworthiness requires that the ship, including the hull, decks, and machinery, be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are used. Plaintiff's allegation that the vessel was unseaworthy because there was a shortage of crew available to open the stairwell covers and vent hatches, which lead to his having to perform those tasks alone resulting in his back injury, was sufficient to raise an issue of fact to be resolved by a jury. Jones Act: Plaintiff's allegation that the health care provider assigned by the owner failed to exercise due care when reassigning plaintiff back to work was a sufficient allegation of Jones Act negligence to be resolved by a jury.

In re Marine Asbestos Cases
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
September 10, 2001

Jones Act/Maintenance & Cure/Seaworthiness: plaintiff seamen, none of whom had been diagnosed with an asbestos-related medical condition, had no claim under the Jones Act or under the doctrines of seaworthiness and maintenance & cure for the costs of medical monitoring that would provide each plaintiff with a single baseline medical examination.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
December 13, 1999

Maintenance & Cure/Releases: interpreting a seaman's release of a maintenance and cure claim is a legal issue for the court to decide, which construes any ambiguities against the drafter and in favor of the seaman.

Espinal v. Royal Caribbean Cruises
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
June 8, 2001

Maintenance & Cure: the district court erred in relying on the general maritime law, rather than the terms of the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"), in calculating the amount of unearned sick wages due plaintiff seaman.

About the WWW Virtual Library  |  Disclaimer  |   Feedback
© Todd Kenyon. All rights reserved.