Barnes v. Andover Co., L.P.

69 Citing cases

  1. Hall v. Noble Drilling

    242 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2001)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "in more recent years courts have awarded maintenance and cure to seamen who have no room or board on their vessels" (citing Barnes v. Andover Co., 900 F.2d 630, 640-44 (3d Cir. 1990); Hudspeth, 266 F. Supp. at 943)

    The Supreme Court endorsed the modern rule in Calmar S.S. Corp., 303 U.S. at 529, 58 S.Ct. 651.See Barnes v. Andover Co., 900 F.2d 630, 640-44 (3d Cir. 1990); Hudspeth v. Atlantic Gulf Stevedores, Inc., 266 F.Supp. 937, 943 (E.D.La. 1967). The expansion in the last century of the scope of maintenance has complicated the calculation of the appropriate rate of maintenance.

  2. Delaware River Bay Auth. v. Kopacz

    584 F.3d 622 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that commuter seamen are equally entitled to maintenance as their "blue water counterparts"

    In this appeal from the District Court's award of declaratory judgment in favor of defendant Jan Kopacz, and against plaintiff Delaware River Bay Authority ("DRBA"), we are called upon to decide two issues of admiralty law: (1) whether commuter seamen, who eat and sleep on land, are entitled to "maintenance and cure" — payment from a shipowner to a seaman to cover medical, food, and lodging expenses during the seaman's recovery from illness or injury; and (2) if so, whether a shipowner is relieved of its maintenance and cure obligation when the injured seaman receives Social Security disability benefits and long-term disability payments provided by the shipowner. Relying on our opinions in Barnes v. Andover Company, L.P., 900 F.2d 630 (3d Cir. 1990), and Shaw v. Ohio River Company, 526 F.2d 193 (3d Cir. 1975), the District Court concluded that commuter seamen are entitled to maintenance and cure, independent of other benefits paid to the seaman. Accordingly, the District Court awarded Kopacz maintenance of $50,790.

  3. Joyce v. Maersk Line Ltd.

    876 F.3d 502 (3d Cir. 2017)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "[i]t is the tradition of this court that the holding of a panel in a precedential opinion is binding on subsequent panels[]" (quoting 3d Cir. I.O.P. 9.1) and that an en banc hearing is required to overrule a prior panel's precedent

    Following the lead of several of our sister circuits, we now hold that a union contract freely entered by a seafarer—a contract that includes rates of maintenance, cure, and unearned wages—will not be reviewed piecemeal by courts unless there is evidence of unfairness in the collective bargaining process. In so holding, we overrule our decision in Barnes v. Andover Co., L.P. , 900 F.2d 630 (3d Cir. 1990).I. Background

  4. Joyce v. Maersk Line, Ltd.

    Civil Action No. 13-5566 (ES) (D.N.J. Jun. 30, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Maintenance is defined as "the payment by a shipowner to a seaman for the seaman's food and lodging expenses incurred while he is ashore as a result of illness or accident." Barnes v. Andover Co., L.P., 900 F.2d 630, 631 (3d Cir. 1990). On September 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a proposed class action complaint in the instant case, alleging that portions of the CBA governing unearned wages and maintenance payments violated general maritime law and the Shipowners' Liability Convention, 54 Stat. 1693. (D.E. No. 1).

  5. Saco v. Tug Tucana Corp.

    483 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D. Mass. 2007)   Cited 14 times
    Noting that it is the shipowner who bears the burden of proving MMI, with opinions from the seaman's treating physicians

    See Hall v. Noble Drilling, Inc., 242 F.3d at 587-593. Inasmuch as "[m]aintenance is intended to substitute for the food and lodging that a seaman enjoyed at sea," Barnes v. Andover Co., L.P., 900 F.2d 630, 641 (3rd Cir. 1990), telephone and television charges are not included as integral elements of such lodging.See generally Gillikin v. United States, 764 F.Supp. at 273.

  6. Smith v. Delaware Bay Launch Service, Inc.

    972 F. Supp. 836 (D. Del. 1997)   Cited 23 times
    Recognizing that "shipowner has the burden of proving that maximum cure has been reached"

    1. A shipowner must pay maintenance (food and lodging) and cure (medical expenses) for any seaman who is injured or falls ill while in the service of the ship. Barnes v. Andover Co., 900 F.2d 630, 633 (3d Cir. 1990). This obligation, which has been recognized for centuries, "derives from the `unique hazards (which) attend the work of seamen' and fosters the `combined object of encouraging marine commerce and assuring the well-being of seamen.'"

  7. Lundborg v. Keystone Shipping Co.

    89 Wn. App. 886 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    We find the Third Circuit approach to be the better reasoned. Barnes v. Andover Co., L.P., 900 F.2d 630 (3d Cir.1990). See also Brown v. United States, 882 F.Supp. 1424 (S.D.N.Y.1995); Gillikin v. United States, 764 F.Supp. 261 (E.D.N.Y.1991).

  8. Deisler v. McCormack Aggregates Co.

    54 F.3d 1074 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 57 times
    Upholding the award of attorneys' fees against the defendant based upon the finding that such defendant's conduct was arbitrary and capricious

    See Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 528, 58 S.Ct. 651, 653, 82 L.Ed. 993 (1938)." Barnes v. Andover Co. L.P., 900 F.2d 630, 633 (3d Cir. 1990). An employer's obligation to furnish maintenance and cure continues "until the seaman has reached the point of maximum cure, that is until the seaman is cured or his condition is diagnosed as permanent and incurable."

  9. Peake v. Chevron Shipping Co., Inc.

    No. C 00-4228 MHP (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2004)   Cited 4 times
    Adopting the analytic framework of Hall v. Noble Drilling (U.S.) Inc., 242 F.3d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 2001) (stating that "determination of the amount of maintenance is a factual question")

    The parties agree — as they must — that "maintenance" refers to "the living allowance for a seaman while he is ashore recovering from injury or illness"; "cure," in turn, denotes the "payment of medical expenses incurred in treating the seaman's injury or illness." Barnes v. Andover Co., 900 F.2d 630, 633 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 531 (1962), and Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 528 (1938)); see also Hall v. Noble Drilling, Inc., 242 F.3d 582, 585 (5th Cir. 2001) ("[M]aintenance does not provide for expenses such as telephone or automobile bills or the costs of supporting children."). The question of apportionment of "maintenance and cure" is a somewhat simpler issue.

  10. Marcic v. Reinauer Transportation Companies

    02 CV 3042 (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2003)

    A seaman is entitled to receive maintenance from the date that he "is incapacitated to do a seaman's work" and until he reaches the point of "maximum cure." Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 531 (1962); Barnes v. Andover Co., 900 F.2d 630, 634 (3rd Cir. 1990); Durfor v. K-Sea Transp., No. 00 CV 6782, 2001 WL 856612, *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2001); Gillikin v. United States, 764 F. Supp. 261, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 1991). Maximum cure is the point at which no further improvement in the seaman's medical condition is reasonably expected.