SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge.
This is a maritime action for the recovery for maintenance and cure. Plaintiff alleges he developed a disabling skin condition on July 16, 2014, while working as a seaman aboard the IDB CAILLOU.
This case was tried before the undersigned without a jury. Having considered the evidence admitted at trial and the arguments of counsel, the Court announces its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. To the extent a finding of fact constitutes a conclusion of law, the Court adopts it as such. To the extent a conclusion of law constitutes a finding of fact, the Court adopts it as such.
1. Plaintiff is a seaman employed by Defendant as a roustabout aboard the IDB CAILLOU.
2. Plaintiff's most recent assignment was a six-week hitch scheduled to begin on July 16, 2014.
3. On the morning of July 15, 2014, Plaintiff was visiting with friends at a Shell gas station in Columbia, Mississippi, when he received a call from his sister, Roseita Jefferson. Ms. Jefferson informed Plaintiff that her truck was not running properly. Ms. Jefferson brought the truck to the Shell station. In order to fix the truck, Plaintiff rented tools from an auto parts store about one block from the Shell station. Plaintiff walked to and from the auto parts store at least twice. Plaintiff did not experience any physical discomfort during this time.
4. After fixing his sister's truck, Plaintiff ran an errand and then went to his sister's house to pack and get ready for his hitch.
5. Plaintiff returned to the Shell station at approximately 7:30 p.m. to await his ride to work—Marcus Grinstead ("Grinstead"). Grinstead arrived at approximately 10:30 p.m. Plaintiff was not in any physical discomfort at this time, nor did Grinstead observe any signs of discomfort.
6. Plaintiff and Grinstead drove together to Defendant's dock in Intracostal City, Louisiana. At some point during their four-hour drive, the two stopped so that Plaintiff could drive. Plaintiff drove the rest of the way to Intracostal City. He did not experience any pain during the trip or while driving.
7. Plaintiff and Grinstead arrived in Intracostal city at approximately 2:15 a.m. on July 16, 2014. They boarded a crew boat thirty minutes later along with several other co-workers.
8. The crew boat arrived at the IDB CAILLOU at approximately 3:15 a.m.
9. After unpacking his things and changing into work clothes, Plaintiff ate breakfast and then attended a safety meeting.
10. Plaintiff began his daily work around 6:15 a.m. He emptied trashcans until summoned by his immediate supervisor, Kenneth Pitre ("Pitre"). Pitre requested that Plaintiff help service two cranes. Plaintiff's tasks included checking the integrity of the cables and pullies, and carrying around a large set of shackles and a pair of pliers. Plaintiff completed his tasks without incident and went to lunch at about 10:30 a.m.
11. Following a 20-minute lunch break, Plaintiff relieved the roughnecks on the drill floor and helped "trip" pipes. While working on the drill floor, Plaintiff began to experience an intense burning sensation in his feet. Plaintiff left the drill floor at approximately 1:00 p.m. and went to the change room. Plaintiff removed his boots and socks. His feet were badly blistered.
12. Plaintiff subsequently contacted Pitre. Pitre met Plaintiff in the workroom and told him to soak his feet in ice water. Plaintiff soaked his feet for about 35 minutes, after which he was summoned through the PA system to return to the rig floor. Plaintiff worked for about 30 minutes and then sought Pitre again. Plaintiff complained that his feet still hurt. Pitre ordered Plaintiff to leave the rig floor and to clean things on the first floor of the vessel.
13. While in the change room, Plaintiff was approached by Jimmy Varnes ("Varnes"), the Health, Safety, and Environment coordinator for Defendant. Varnes observed what he described as "nasty" and "open" blisters on Plaintiff's feet, ankles, arm,
14. By this time, Plaintiff was in so much pain that he was unable to walk. Plaintiff was carried by hand to the crew boat. The crew boat departed for Intracoastal City with Plaintiff, Varnes, and two wireline workers.
15. Plaintiff called his friend Darryl Stetney ("Stetney") to request a ride from Intracoastal City. Stetney reluctantly agreed to make the four-hour drive from Columbia, Mississippi.
16. The crewboat arrived at Intracoastal City at approximately 9:30 p.m. Plaintiff was carried to the shore and placed on a tree stump. Plaintiff was then loaded into the truck of the wireline workers. The wireline workers volunteered to drive Plaintiff to Lafayette, Louisiana.
17. Plaintiff notified Stetney that he was being taken to Lafayette.
18. The wireline workers deposited Plaintiff at a Racetrac gas station in Lafayette some time in the middle of the night.
19. Stetney arrived at approximately 1:30 a.m. on July 17, 2014. Alarmed at Plaintiff's dire physical condition, Stetney carried Plaintiff to his truck and immediately called an ambulance.
20.The ambulance transported Plaintiff to Lafayette General Hospital ("Lafayette General"). Plaintiff was eventually diagnosed with SJS. The etiology of Plaintiff's SJS is presently unknown.
21. Upon learning that Plaintiff was receiving treatment in Lafayette General, Ryne Malcolm ("Malcolm")—Defendant's Human Resources Manager—dispatched Jerald Landry ("Landry") to the hospital. Landry is a claims adjuster with American Claims Services. His job is to ascertain basic information about injured personnel, including the purpose of their visit to the hospital and the circumstances surrounding the injury. Landry also attempts to obtain a signed medical authorization. Landry does not interview doctors, review medical records, or make medical determinations.
22. Landry identified himself to Plaintiff as a representative of Defendant. Plaintiff signed a medical authorization. Landry then began asking non-medical questions about Plaintiff's past, including his criminal record and employment history. On the advice of one of the nurses—who felt Landry was needlessly harassing her patient— Plaintiff revoked his medical authorization. Landry was then asked to leave.
23. Landry reported to Defendant that he did not obtain any medical records or medical authorization.
24. Plaintiff was released from Lafayette General on July 25, 2014. He continued to treat at various medical facilities and eventually underwent debridement surgery on his hands, feet, and left forearm. Plaintiff received further treatment after the surgery. He treated with Dr. Oswalt on October 17, 2014, November 3, 2014, and December 15, 2014. A fourth appointment is scheduled for January, 2015.
25. Following his release from Lafayette General, Plaintiff moved in with his sister, Roseita Jefferson, and her younger daughter. Pursuant to this arrangement, Plaintiff was to pay the household bills, including groceries, cable, light and gas. Those bills totaled approximately $700 per month, or $23.33 per day.
26.The parties have stipulated that Plaintiff will reach maximum possible cure on January 30, 2015 and that his total cure amounts to $84,961.55.
27. The parties have not agreed on the amount of any maintenance award.
28. Malcolm performed the maintenance and cure investigation for Defendant.
29.Malcolm telephoned Plaintiff on July 17, 2014. After speaking with Plaintiff, Malcolm contacted American Claims Services and learned the claims adjuster had been asked to leave the hospital. Malcolm then spoke with other employees of Defendant who worked with Plaintiff on July 16, 2014. Finally, Malcolm reviewed incident reports completed in connection with Plaintiff's complaints.
30.Malcolm ultimately concluded Plaintiff's injuries were caused by a pre-existing condition related to herpes or a reaction to the medicine he allegedly brought aboard the IDB CAILLOU.
31. Malcolm orally reported this conclusion to his immediate boss—Lisa Williams ("Williams")—on July 17, 2014.
32. There was no further investigation of Plaintiff's claims.
33. Defendant did not review Plaintiff's medical records.
34. Defendant did not request that Plaintiff be tested for herpes or that any tests be done to establish a connection between Plaintiff's SJS and the medication he allegedly brought to work.
1. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, which vests federal district courts with original jurisdiction over maritime claims.
2. Maintenance and cure is a contractual form of compensation afforded to seamen who become ill or injured while in service of a vessel.
3. The defenses to maintenance and cure are "few and narrowly applied."
4. Defendant explicitly disclaimed any such defense at trial. Instead, the denial of maintenance and cure is based on Defendant's contention that Plaintiff's injuries were manifest prior to his service of the vessel.
5. It is undisputed that Plaintiff suffered from severe, debilitating blisters while servicing the IDB CAILLOU. Even if those blisters were manifest (in some form) prior to Plaintiff's anticipated hitch, Plaintiff's condition significantly worsened while he was "subject to the call of duty as a seaman, and earning wages as such."
6. Plaintiff is owed maintenance and cure. The Court must now determine quantum.
7. The right to maintenance and cure terminates when the seaman reaches "maximum possible cure," i.e., "where it is probable that further treatment will result in no betterment of the seaman's condition."
8. "Maintenance" is a per diem living allowance paid when a seaman is outside the hospital and has not yet reached maximum possible cure.
9. Maintenance payments cover the reasonable cost of food and lodging.
10. The Fifth Circuit has set forth a three-part test for determining the amount of a maintenance award.
11. As discussed above, Plaintiff has satisfied his "feather light" burden of proving actual expenses in the amount of $23.33 per day.
12. Having determined actual expenses, the Court must now estimate reasonable expenses. In making this estimate, the Court may consider a variety of factors including "actual costs, evidence of reasonable costs in the locality or region, union contracts stipulating a rate of maintenance or per diem payments for shoreside food or lodging while in the service of a vessel, and maintenance rates awarded in other cases for seamen in the same region."
13. The Court finds that a maintenance award of $40 per day is appropriate in this case.
14. Plaintiff's actual expenses are $23.33 per day but his reasonable expenses are $40 per day. In this scenario—where reasonable expenses exceed actual expenses—a maintenance award should generally not exceed actual expenses. The Court finds, however, that no reasonable seaman could live on $23.33 per day.
15. Plaintiff is owed maintenance from the date he left the vessel, July 16, 2014, to the date of maximum cure, January 30, 2015,
16. The parties have stipulated to a cure amount of $84,961.55.
17. Defendant's total maintenance and cure obligation is $92,881.55.
18. In addition to a maintenance and cure payment, Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The damages recoverable for the denial of maintenance and cure fall on an "escalating scale of liability."
19. Although each case is evaluated on its facts, "it is clear that laxness in investigating a claim that would have been found to be meritorious will subject a shipowner to liability for attorney's fees and punitive damages."
20.The investigation in this case was impermissibly lax, consisting primarily of Malcolm's conversation with Plaintiff, his conversations with Plaintiff's co-workers, and his review of incident reports. From these sources of information, Malcolm concluded that Plaintiff's injuries were caused by a pre-existing condition related to herpes or a reaction to the medicine he allegedly brought aboard the IDB CAILLOU.
21. There is no evidence that Malcolm or any other representative of Defendant reviewed Plaintiff's medical records or talked to his treating physicians. Defendant did not offer any medical opinion at trial to support Malcolm's theory of causation. In fact, Defendant did not order any tests to confirm that Plaintiff had contracted herpes or that his injuries were caused by ingesting medication. Instead, Defendant made a medical determination without medical evidence.
22. The denial of maintenance and cure was arbitrary and capricious.
23. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
24.Under the general maritime law, compensatory damages are those "that have resulted from the failure to pay, such as the aggravation of the seaman's condition, determined by the usual principles applied in tort cases to measure compensatory damages."
25. Based on the evidence presented at trial, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000.
26.As a general rule in maritime cases, punitive damages "should not exceed the amount of compensatory relief awarded."
27. The Court also finds that an award of attorneys' fees and costs is appropriate for a case that never should have been tried in the first place. Plaintiff shall file a motion before the magistrate judge to determine quantum within ten days of the entry of this Order.
28. The final issue is whether prejudgment interest should be awarded. "It is generally accepted that, under maritime law, the award of prejudgment interest is `well-nigh automatic.'"
29. There are no such peculiar circumstances in this case. Accordingly, the Court will award prejudgment interest from the date of loss,
30.Admiralty courts "may look to state law and other reasonable guideposts" to determine the rate of prejudgment interest.
Plaintiff suffered severe and debilitating injury while servicing the IDB CAILLOU. Rather than arrange treatment for those injuries, Defendant banished Plaintiff from the vessel without warning. Lacking the physical capability to care of himself, Plaintiff was forced to rely on the charity of the two wireline workers. But that charity only went so far, and Plaintiff endured hours of mental and physical agony outside and alone until rescued by Stetney in the middle of the night. Defendant's callous disregard for Plaintiff's well-being is further demonstrated by the deficient maintenance and cure "investigation." This investigation was impermissibly lax under any reasonable standard. The Court finds an award of punitive damages is necessary to ensure the next worker who falls ill aboard one of Defendant's vessels receives the treatment he deserves, as a seaman and as a human being.
Plaintiff is entitled to maintenance and cure in the amount of $92,881.55, compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000, and punitive damages in the amount of $10,000. Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $112,881.55, with prejudgment interest at 4.00% from June 16, 2014. Post-judgment interest will accrue at the judicial rate. Once the Court has determined the appropriate quantum of attorneys' fees, a separate judgment will be entered with identical interest rates.
