Luckenbach Overseas Corporation v. Penland

2 Citing cases

  1. Cargo Ship Tanker v. McDonald

    435 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Civ. App. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    that treatment is palliative, only, as distinguished from curative treatment. Farrel v. United States, 336 U.S. 511, 699 S.Ct . 707, 93 L.Ed. 850; Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 58 S .Ct. 651, 82 L.Ed. 993; Rofer v. Head Head, Inc., 5th Cir., 226 F.2d 927; Ryan v. U.S. Lines Co., 2d Cir., 303 F.2d 430; Stanovich v . Jurlin, 9th Cir., 227 F.2d 245; Desmond v. United States, 217 F.2d 948; Luckenbach Overseas Corp. v. Penland, Tex.Civ.App., 409 S.W.2d 933, writ ref., n.r.e. To clarify our disposition of this case, we quote from the judgment of the trial court.

  2. Lewis v. Isthmian Lines

    425 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. Civ. App. 1968)   Cited 17 times
    In Lewis, however, the court held that the seaman's right to recover cure ceased when he reached his maximum recovery or ceased to avail himself of curative treatment.

    A continuation of treatment does not continue the right to maintenance if that treatment is palliative, only, as distinguished from curative treatment. Farrel v. United States, 336 U.S. 511, 69 S.Ct. 707, 93 L.Ed. 850; Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 58 S.Ct. 651, 82 L.Ed. 993; Rofer v. Head Head, Inc., 5th Cir., 226 F.2d 927; Ryan v. U.S. Lines Co., 2d Cir., 303 F.2d 430; Stanovich v. Jurlin, 9th Cir., 227 F.2d 245; Desmond v. United States, 217 F.2d 948; Luckenbach Overseas Corp. v. Penland, Tex.Civ.App., 409 S.W.2d 933, writ ref., n.r.e. The evidence here showed conclusively that the plaintiff received no curative treatment after he was declared fit for duty by the U.S.P.H.S. on November 4, 1965. Under those circumstances, it was proper for the trial court to refuse to submit the plaintiff's requested special issues, if any, relating to his claim for maintenance. He was paid his maintenance to that date and was entitled to none thereafter. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.