Opinion
Civil Action No: 01-136, SECTION "R" (5)
May 11, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff's unopposed motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of maintenance and cure. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of an alleged accident that occurred on September 24, 2000. Plaintiff claims that while he was employed as a deckhand by defendant Gulf South Marine Towing, Inc., he slipped off the deck of the barge E. RENTON SR onto the river bed, causing multiple fractures in his right ankle and leg. Defendant paid plaintiff maintenance and cure benefits until November 3, 2000. Plaintiff claims that he is still unable to work as a deckhand and needs physical therapy and medical attention for his injuries. Defendant has refused to provide further maintenance and cure; therefore, plaintiff now moves for partial summary judgment establishing his right to maintenance and cure benefits.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues as to any material facts, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986). A court must be satisfied that no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonmoving party or, in other words, "that the evidence favoring the nonmoving party is insufficient to enable a reasonable jury to return a verdict in her favor." Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 178 (5th Cir. 1990) ( citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 251). (1986)). The moving party bears the burden of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact.
If the dispositive issue is one for which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the evidence in the record contains insufficient proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2554; see also Lavespere, 910 F.2d at 178. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553. The nonmovant may not rest upon the pleadings, but must identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue exists for trial. See id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2553-54; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1996).
B. Maintenance and Cure
Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to maintenance and cure because he was injured while he was employed by defendant. Seamen have a right to maintenance and cure for injuries suffered by them in the course of their duties on a vessel. See O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge Dock Co., 318 U.S. 36, 42, 63 S.Ct. 488, 491 (1943). Before plaintiff can recover maintenance and cure, he bears the burden of alleging and proving the following facts: (a) his engagement as a seaman, (b) that his illness or injury occurred, was aggravated or manifested itself while in the ship's service, (c) the wages to which he may be entitled, and (d) the expenditures or liability incurred by him for medicines, nursing care, board and lodging. Foster, III v. Brian's Trans. Serv., et al., 1993 WL 114528, *2 (E.D. La. 1993) (citing MARTIN NORRIS, 2 THE LAW OF SEAMAN § 26.21, at 53 (Supp. 1992)). However, this burden of proof is light, and the Court resolves ambiguities and doubts in the seaman's favor. See id. (citing Vaughan v. Atkinson, et al., 369 U.S. 527, 532, 82 S.Ct. 997, 1000 (1962)). A plaintiff need not present any proof of negligence or fault on the part of the employer to establish his entitlement to maintenance and cure. See id.
Seamen injured in the course of their employment are entitled maintenance and cure benefits until they reach the point of maximum cure. See Breese v. AWI, Inc., 823 F.2d 100, 104 (5th Cir. 1987). Maximum cure is the point at which no further improvement in the seaman's medical condition is reasonably expected. Lauland v. Hugh Eymard Towing Co., Inc., 2000 WL 533880, *7 (citing Farrell v. United States, 336 U.S. 511, 518, 69 S.Ct. 707, 711 (1949)). Generally, the obligation to provide maintenance and cure ends when a doctor provides a qualified medical opinion that plaintiff has reached maximum possible cure. See id. (citing Breese, 823 F.2d at 104-05).
Plaintiff has provided evidence demonstrating that he was a seaman injured while in the service of the E. RENTON SR and employed by Gulf South Marine. ( See Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. Ex. A). The affidavit states that plaintiff is totally disabled because of his leg and ankle injuries and that he is in need of physical therapy and follow up care. ( See Id.) Defendants have not opposed this motion and therefore have offered no evidence demonstrating that a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to maintenance and cure.
C. Attorneys' Fees
If an employer willfully and wantonly fails to pay maintenance and cure, the seaman may recover past maintenance and cure plus attorneys' fees. See Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 59 F.3d 1496, 1512-13 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1046, 116 S.Ct. 706 (1996). A shipowner who is in fact liable for maintenance and cure but who has been reasonable in denying the payments may only be held liable for the amount of maintenance and cure. See Morales v. Garijak, Inc., 829 F.2d 1355, 1358 (5th Cir. 1987). Because defendants neither argued nor demonstrated that they have acted reasonably in denying plaintiff maintenance and cure, the Court awards past maintenance and cure and attorneys' fees.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED.