holding that shipowner did not owe maintenance and cure where seaman was permanently disabled and treatment would relieve aches and pains but would not improve his condition
How later courts described this case
- holding that shipowner did not owe maintenance and cure where seaman was permanently disabled and treatment would relieve aches and pains but would not improve his condition
- noting that a totally disabled seaman no longer entitled to maintenance and cure benefits could institute a later proceeding for “treatment of a curative nature such as a new drug or a new surgical technique”
- holding that the duty of maintenance and cure ends when a disability has been found to be permanent
- providing a detailed historical exegesis of the origin of "maintenance and cure"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SEITZ, Chief Judge
(concurring).
The record in this case establishes that the sole effect of treatments for which plaintiff sought recovery was the relief of pain suffered by Cox. I agree with the disposition of the case on the basis of the majority’s holding that an award of maintenance and cure cannot be sustained on the ground of a shipowner’s duty to provide medical care that can serve only to reduce pain. However, I think it unnecessary and unwise to go out of our way to announce that there is no duty to provide treatment which arrests the progress of a deteriorating physical condition. That issue is not presented by this case and, indeed, is expressly left open by the Supreme Court in Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1 , 95 S.Ct. 1381 , 43 L.Ed.2d 682 (1975).
Judge Adams joins in this opinion.