The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROIN CHRISTOPHER RICHARD, CIVIL ACTION
JR
VERSUS NO: 20-580
WEBER MARINE, LLC SECTION: “J”(5)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 26)
filed by Plaintiff, Roin Christopher Richard, Jr., and an opposition thereto (Rec. Doc.
34) filed by Defendant, Weber Marine, LLC. Having considered the motion, legal
memoranda, record, and applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment should be DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2019, the M/V Miss Rachel was struck by a runaway barge that
had come unmoored. Defendant owned and operated the M/V Miss Rachel and
employed Plaintiff to operate the vessel. At the time of the allision, Plaintiff alleges
that he was lying in a bunk on the M/V Miss Rachel while serving as a member of the
crew. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the allision, he received injuries to his back,
neck, and right wrist and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Plaintiff did
not complain of any injury at the time of the allision, nor did he advise Defendant of
any injury before his shift ended on March 29, 2019.
Less than two weeks after the incident, Plaintiff sought employment with
Intracoastal Tug and Barge Company, LLC (“Intratug”). On April 8, 2019, Plaintiff
denied that he had any prior injuries to his back, neck, wrist, or hand in his pre-
employment physical. On May 1, 2019, Plaintiff was fired by Intratug for an unknown
reason. After being fired by Intratug, Plaintiff applied to work for Central Boat
Rentals. On May 10, 2019, during his pre-employment physical, Plaintiff again
denied having any prior injuries to his back, neck, wrist, or hand. Before being hired
by Central Boat Rentals, Plaintiff returned to work for Defendant between May 15
and May 17, 2019 and did not mention any injury or inability to work. On June 11,
2019, Bourgeois Medical Clinic informed Central Boat Rentals that Plaintiff was not
cleared for employment due to a protrusion in the C5 and C6 vertebrae in his cervical
spine and high blood pressure.
After being denied employment by Central Boat Rentals, Plaintiff began
receiving treatment from LA Health Solutions. On January 23, 2020, about six
months after Plaintiff began receiving treatment, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter
demanding maintenance and cure along with medical records documenting his
injuries and resulting inability to work. In response to its receipt of Plaintiff’s letter,
Defendant began its investigation of Plaintiff’s claims by requesting medical records,
medical authorizations, employment records, and independent medical evaluations
of Plaintiff’s condition.
On February 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant action. Although there was
initially some dispute regarding whether Plaintiff’s counsel would allow any
independent medical examinations, the parties reached an agreement to allow
Defendant to conduct independent medical examinations on June 19, 2020. Of
Defendant’s three independent medical examinations of Plaintiff, only one report has
been completed thus far. In addition, Defendant’s investigation led to the discovery
that Plaintiff was involved in an undisclosed automobile accident in 2017, which
caused Plaintiff to receive treatment for back and neck pain resulting from that
accident.
On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Partial Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff asks the Court to find that Defendant owes Plaintiff maintenance
and cure as a matter of law. Plaintiff also asks the Court to find that Defendant
arbitrarily and capriciously withheld maintenance and cure from Plaintiff, which
would entitle Plaintiff to punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56); Little v.
Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). When assessing whether a
dispute as to any material fact exists, a court considers “all of the evidence in the
record but refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.”
Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th
Cir. 2008). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, but
a party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations or
unsubstantiated assertions. Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. A court ultimately must be
satisfied that “a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Delta, 530 F.3d at 399.
DISCUSSION
An employer in a contractual relationship with a seaman owes a duty to pay
maintenance and cure for injuries suffered in the course of the seaman’s service to
the vessel. Pelotto v. L &N Towing Co., 604 F.2d 396, 400 (5th Cir. 1979).
“Maintenance is a daily stipend for living expenses, whereas cure is the payment of
medical expenses.” Meche v. Doucet, 777 F.3d 237, 244 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). To recover on a maintenance and cure claim, the
plaintiff is only required to establish that he was injured while “subject to the call of
duty as a seaman.” Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 318 U.S. 724, 732 (1943). The
employer is also liable for pre-existing conditions that manifest during the voyage.
Jauch v. Nautical Services, Inc., 470 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 2006). Any doubts
regarding whether a seaman is entitled to cure are resolved in favor of the seaman.
Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 532 (1962). However, when a seaman demands
maintenance and cure, the employer is entitled to conduct a reasonable investigation
of the claim. Boudreaux v. Transocean Deepwater, Inc., 721 F.3d 723, 728 (5th Cir.
2013); Brown v. Parker Drilling Offshore Corp., 410 F.3d 166, 171 (5th Cir. 2005).
When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the Court must view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In this case, several
facts support denying Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. First, Defendant
alleges that Plaintiff received treatment for neck and back pain resulting from his
undisclosed 2017 automobile accident, and Plaintiff alleges injuries to his neck and
back resulting from the allision in the present case. Second, Plaintiff denied having
back, neck, wrist, or hand injuries in two separate pre-employment physicals after
the allision. Third, Plaintiff did not begin to receive treatment for his injuries until
about 3 months after the allision. Finally, Plaintiff did not report his allegedly work-
related injury from the allision until ten months after it occurred.
Although Plaintiff is only required to show that an incident occurred in which
he was injured or that a pre-existing condition manifested while in the service of the
M/V Miss Rachel, the aforementioned facts show that genuine factual issues remain
as to whether the allision caused Plaintiff's injuries or whether Plaintiff's injuries
manifested during the voyage. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to show entitlement to
judgment as a matter of law on his maintenance and cure claim.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Roin Christopher Richard’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 26) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8th day of October, 2020.
CARL J. BAR
UNITED ST DISTRICT JUDGE