The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Brian J. Billiot CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO: 22-311
Hayden II, LLC SECTION: "A" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion for Summary Judgment to Pay
Maintenance and Cure Benefits (Rec. Doc. 18). Defendant, Hayden II, opposes the
motion. The motion, submitted for consideration on August 3, 2022, is before the Court
without oral argument. For the following reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment is
DENIED.
Plaintiff filed this action to recover for damages allegedly sustained on January 26,
2022, while working as a seaman on the vessel Hayden II. Plaintiff alleges that he slipped
on an unsecured board during the scope of his employment, was injured as a result, and
received medical care at a number of different medical providers. In this motion, Plaintiff
is seeking summary judgment for maintenance and cure benefits from the date of his
disability.
Maintenance is a contractual form of compensation afforded by the general
maritime law to seamen who fall ill or are injured while in the service of a vessel. Meche
v. Doucet, 777 F.3d 237, 244 (5th Cir. 2015)(quoting Jauch v. Nautical Servs., Inc., 470
F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 2006)(citing McCorpen v. Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp., 396 F.2d 547, 548
(5th Cir. 1968))). Seamen are entitled to maintenance and cure from their employer for
injuries that are sustained during their service on the vessel, until the seaman reaches
his full medical recovery. See The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158, 175, 23 S. Ct. 483, 47 L. Ed.
760 (1903), superseded, in part, by the Jones Act; see also Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369
U.S. 527, 531, 82 S. Ct. 997, 8 L. Ed. 2d 88 (1962). When a seaman demands
maintenance and cure, an employer is not obliged to immediately begin payments; rather,
it may conduct a reasonable investigation of the claim and require corroboration without
subjecting itself to compensatory or punitive damages. 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); Morales v. Garijak, Inc., 829 F.2d 1355, 1358
(5th Cir. 1987), abrogated on other grounds by Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 59
F.3d 1496 (5th Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by Atl. Sounding Co., Inc. v.
Townsend, 557 U.S. 404, 424, 129 S. Ct. 2561, 174 L. Ed. 2d 382 (2009).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” when viewed
in the light most favorable to the non-movant, “show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact.” TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James, 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2002)
(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)). “[A] dispute about
a material fact is ‘genuine’ . . . if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return
a verdict for the nonmoving party.” In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prod. Liab. Litig., 994 F.3d
704, 707–08 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The court must draw
all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Sedgwick James, 276 F.3d at
759 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). However, the Court must be wary to grant a
motion for summary judgment prematurely, according to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 56(d). Summary judgment is a mechanism that requires, while not all
discovery, enough evidence to present facts essential to justify its opposition. Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 56.
In the instant case, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment in the first two weeks of
the discovery period. Because of the hastiness of this motion, neither party was able to
provide the Court with much evidence to prove or disprove that the Plaintiff sustained
injuries on Hayden II, what kind of injuries he allegedly sustained, and even if Plaintiff was
employed by Defendant at the time of the alleged injury. Furthermore, viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the Defendant, there are genuine issues of material
fact as to many aspects of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff alleges his injury was unwitnessed
by any other employees. However, in Plaintiff's original complaint, he claimed to have
injured his back within the scope of Defendant’s employment on February 20, 2019, which
was later determined to be inaccurate. In the absence of any corroborating evidence to
support his claim at this juncture in discovery, and viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, granting a motion for summary judgment would be
contrary to the evidence presented.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment to Pay Maintenance
and Cure Benefits (Rec. Doc. 18) filed by Plaintiff, Brian J. Billiot, is DENIED.
Cc ¢
October 4, 2022
| - cyan |
U STATES DISTRICT JUDGE