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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.'"
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).
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."
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.
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.