Id. at 467. Similarly, in Pallis v. United States , 369 F. App'x 538 (5th Cir. 2010), our court upheld the assignment of 75% fault to a seaman when he was ordered to move trash and elected to carry the heavier objects without any help, id. at 540, 546. In reducing the seaman's award proportional to his fault, we explained that a rule barring contributory negligence for all orders would make "automatons of seamen" and abrogate the principle that a seaman must perform his tasks with ordinary prudence.

The language and general posture of Great Lakes' safety materials places the onus solely on the employee to assert his stop work authority and ask for a load bearing assessment. (Rec. Doc. 31-9). Merely using language in safety materials that places the burden on the employee to recognize an unsafe situation does not, however, absolve employee's supervisors of a duty to prevent unsafe situations as well. The allocation of responsibility for making proper safety decisions must be analyzed on a case by case basis. See Pallis v. U.S., 369 Fed. App'x 538 (5th. Cir. 2010) (upholding a judgment that failure to utilize stop work authority and assistance did not completely bar plaintiff's recovery); see also Nichols v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 627 (E.D. La. June, 2007) (holding that failure of defendant to provide safe procedures for the precise task carried out by plaintiff gave rise to negligence claim); Davis v. Abdon Callais Offshore, Inc. No. 3:12-CV-00263 2013 WL 5775907 (S.D. Texas Oct. 2013) (denying defendant's motion for summary judgment even when plaintiff had stop work authority). Defendant's rely heavily on Giroir v. Cenac Marine Services, LLC, No. 18-3595 2019 WL 1056862 (E.D. La. Mar. 2019), a case recently decided by another section of this Court, in support of its motion.

"[A]n injured seaman may recover damages for loss of earnings capacity, future lost earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering resulting from his injury." Pallis v. United States, 369 F. App'x 538, 544 (5th Cir. 2010).29.

After stating that precedent did “not establish a blanket rule precluding a seaman from being found contributorily negligent when acting at the direction of a supervisor,” the Eighth Circuit went on to find that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the plaintiff chose the method of accomplishing the task and chose a less safe alternative that contributed to his injury. Id.In a more recent case, albeit one that is unpublished, the Fifth Circuit in Pallis v. United States, No. 09–40088, 2010 WL 785171 (5th Cir.2010) (per curiam), reviewed a district court's determination that a seaman was 75% contributorily negligent for injuries to his knee sustained while carrying out a supervisor's order to move trash on a ship. 369 Fed.Appx. 538, 541–42.

Moreover, a plaintiff can be awarded both cure and tort damages for future medical expenses, so long as no duplication will occur, because the cure obligation is independent of tort law. Boudreaux , 280 F.3d at 468–69 ; see also Pallis v. United States , 369 Fed.Appx. 538, 545–46 (5th Cir. 2010) ("It is clear from Boudreaux that an award of future medical expenses is not duplicative of cure because the former sounds in tort while the latter is a contractual remedy."). Although Pallis is not "controlling precedent," it "may be [cited as] persuasive authority."

In Pallis v. United States, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a seaman's unseaworthiness claim, reasoning that the number of crew available for assisting the plaintiff was not the cause of plaintiff's injuries. See 369 Fed. App'x 538, 543-44 (5th Cir. 2010). In that case, the district court found that the plaintiff should have waited for additional assistance, and this miscommunication was the proximate cause of his injury.

The Court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to damages for these unfounded and speculative medical costs. See Semien v. Parker Drilling Offshore USA LLC, 179 F.Supp.3d 687, 718 (W.D. La. 2016) (denying a seaman future medical expenses because “any such award would be overly speculative in nature”); cf. Pallis v. United States, 369 Fed.Appx. 538, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) 67 (affirming the district court's decision to deny a seaman future damages because his arguments were too speculative). Trial Testimony of Clifton Badeaux.

13. “An injured seaman may recover damages for loss of earnings capacity, future lost earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering resulting from his injury.” Pallis v. United States, 369 Fed.Appx. 538, 544 (5th Cir. 2010). 14. General damages are available “for pain and suffering and impact on one's normal life routines.”

Ramirez v. Carolina Dream, Inc. , 760 F.3d 119, 126 (1st Cir.2014), citing Farrell v. United States , 336 U.S. 511, 69 S.Ct. 707, 93 L.Ed. 850 (1949). See Pallis v. U.S. , 369 Fed.Appx. 538 (5th Cir.2010)(unpublished) and, therefore, cited for only informational and not precedential value. As to Parker Drilling's current cure obligation, the Court h as found Parker Drilling is obligated to pay the cost of the recommended arthoscopic procedure and of the treatment of Dr. Clause until or unless such treatment is shown, by the results of the arthroscopyto, at that point forward, be palliative only.

(Trial Tr. 108:17-109:11; Ex. 5-005.) Cf., e.g., Pallis v. United States, 369 F. App'x 538 (5th Cir. 2010); accord Gautreaux, 107 F.3d at 339 (overruling Spinks v. Chevron Oil Co., 507 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1975)). While plaintiff may not recover for damages caused by the aforementioned contributory negligence, this fact does not necessarily absolve Mr. Turrell of responsibility or dispose of plaintiff's negligence claim.