Opinion
Case No. 1:01-CV-796
October 22, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The court has before it the following:
1. United States' Motion to Amend the Court's Award of Interest [Doc. #57];
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Re: Maintenance Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 52 [Doc. #59]; and
3. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Pursuant to FRCP 52 [Doc. #60].
This Jones Act case was tried before the Court on September 9, 2003. After both sides had closed, the court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Court signed a Final Judgment on September 15, 2003. The parties have timely filed the above-referenced motions in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52.
Defendant's Motion to Alter Post-Judgment Interest Rate [Doc. #62]
Defendant has moved for an amendment to the judgment to reflect an award of post-judgment at the rate of 4% as required by the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 743. Plaintiff has stated that he is not opposed to amending the judgment in this way. [Doc. #62] Accordingly, the motion will be granted and judgment will be amended to reflect the correct rate of interest.
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Findings Re: Maintenance [Doc. #59]
Plaintiff has asked the court to find that defendant's obligation to make maintenance payments at $8 per day continue, and were not cut off by a receipt of social security disability benefits. Maintenance is a remedy which developed very early in the history of maritime law, and is intended to provide a seaman with food and lodging when injured in a ship's service. See Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 531, 82 S.Ct. 997, 1000 (1962) and authorities cited therein. Its goal is the protection of seaman who were regarded as poor and unable to protect themselves, but, at the same time, as essential for maritime commerce and the economic well-being of the nation.
It is uncontested that Mr. Covert received maintenance through the date of trial. He also qualified for Social Security benefits after going through the somewhat rigorous administrative process, including an appeal. The question is whether Mr. Covert is entitled to maintenance after the date of the judgment.
A seaman is not entitled to maintenance during the time he is in a Public Health hospital or other government or charitable facility. Brown v. Aggie Millie, Inc., 485 F.2d 1293, 1296 (5th Cir. 1973). He is likewise not entitled to maintenance during any time he is voluntarily being supported by others, such as his own family, because he chooses not to go to a government hospital. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 46, 50, 68 S.Ct. 391, 394 (1948). These cases are based on the rationale that the seaman is being supported by public funds or by others so the public policy of protecting the seaman is upheld.
On the other hand, a defendant cannot refuse to pay maintenance and then claim it is not owed because the seaman took a job on land to support himself. Vaughan, 369 U.S. at 533, 82 S.Ct. at 1001. A shipowner is not relieved from the duty to pay maintenance because a seaman receives benefits from an insurance policy he himself purchased with his own funds. Gauthier v. Crosby Marine Service Inc., 752 F.2d 1085, 1090 (5th Cir. 1985). In these cases the courts did not want to set a precedent which might encourage shipowners to withhold maintenance thus forcing a seaman to take other work or purchase his own insurance.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Covert argues that this case is most like Gauthier, while the Government asserts that Brown and Johnson are more closely on point. Neither party has cited a published decision which decides the issue, and this court has found none. Mr. Covert relies upon a Ninth Circuit case in which the shipowner was not allowed to offset payments from the California State Unemployment Disability System. Gypsum Carrier, Inc. v. Handelsman, 307 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1962). In that case the Court noted that the system was funded entirely by payments from the employees, with no contributions from employers. 307 F.2d at 534.
Nobody can seriously argue that the Federal Social Security System is an insurance program. It is a program by which taxes on current employees and their employers are used to fund benefits for former employees, and over the years, others. This distinguishes cases such as Gauthier. Unlike the situation in Handelsman, employers must pay taxes into the Social Security fund, so it is not correct to say that the employer here would benefit from a fund to which it did not contribute. It is true that Mr. Covert also paid some social security taxes. However, seamen pay taxes used to fund U.S. Government Public Health Service hospitals, but that does not entitle them to claim that maintenance should continue while they reside in such a facility. See Brown, 485 F.2d at 1296.
In the final analysis a court sitting in admiralty should ensure that an injured seaman is protected. Maintenance "is one of a number of private and public means directed to rescuing the injured seaman. . . . Ultimately, each involves a flow of wealth from society to an injured individual. It is desirable that all be viewed as parts of an integrated system and applied in a way which will avoid disproportionate recoveries to particular individuals, whether high or low." Handelsman, 307 F.2d at 536.
The balance struck by this decision should accomplish this goal. While Mr. Covert will not receive further maintenance of eight dollars per day, he is receiving Social Security benefits from the same government. Additionally, the judgment compensates him for lost future wage earning capacity so there will be an additional source of money for his support. At the same time, since there was no evidence of future medical costs, and no evidence that Covert had reached maximum cure, the Court left open the government's obligations to provide cure. Mr. Covert receives no windfall, but the government does not avoid its responsibility under ancient maritime law to provide for an injured seaman.
Mr. Covert, perhaps out of an abundance of caution, also raised the issue of offset. The government has not requested that past payments of maintenance be offset or refunded. There was no evidence as to the amount of past Social Security benefits paid, so there is no way to compare them to maintenance already paid. Accordingly, the Court has not ordered an offset or refund of past maintenance.
Second Motion to Amend Findings and Conclusions [Doc. # 60]
Covert also filed a motion to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law which, if granted, would eliminate any reduction in his recovery because of his own negligence. This is simply an invitation for the court to rehash the entire trial and to rewrite its findings. The Court's memory of, and its ability to assess the credibility of, the witnesses and their testimony has not improved during the six weeks since the trial. Plaintiff has pointed to no exhibit or testimony which would indicate that the findings are erroneous or that an injustice has occurred. The Court declines Plaintiff's invitation. See Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum, 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff does raise one new argument — that Defendant was negligent per se in violating a U.S. Coast Guard regulation. This claim was not made in Plaintiff's Complaint nor in the Joint Final Pre-Trial Order. No Coast Guard regulation forbidding the lifting of heavy objects was cited by Plaintiff at trial and none was discussed by any witness, so the issue was not tried by consent. Plaintiff cannot, after trial, turn a description of the minimum qualifications of a seaman into a regulation prohibiting particular activities and advance a new negligence per se theory. There is no basis to amend the finding of Covert's negligence nor to reverse the resulting reduction of damages in the judgment.
Amendment to Form of the Judgment
In reviewing the file while considering these motions the Court determined that a second page of calculations had been inadvertently attached to the judgement after it was signed but before it was entered by the Clerk. The page simply outlines calculations and should be no part of a judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.
It is therefore ORDERED that:
1. "United States' Motion to Amend the Court's Award of Interest" [Doc. #57] is GRANTED, and the Judgement entered in this case on September 15, 2003 is amended so that post-judgment interest is awarded on the judgment at the rate of four percent (4%) per annum in accordance with the Suits in Admiralty Act;
2. Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Re Maintenance Pursuant to FRCP 52" [Doc. #59] is DENIED, except to clarify, if necessary, that nothing in the Court's findings of fact or conclusions of law, or in the Court's judgment shall be interpreted to authorize a set-off or refund of maintenance already paid; and
3. Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Pursuant to FRCP 52" [Doc. #60] is DENIED.
4. It is further ORDERED that the second page inadvertently attached to the one page Final Judgment signed September 15, 2003 shall not be considered to be part of the judgment.