# Veronica Cox, Administratrix of the Estate of William D. Cox, in No. 74-1609 v. Dravo Corporation, in No. 74-1576

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 29, 1975 · 517 F.2d 620

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9461831

## Case

- **Full name:** Veronica COX, Administratrix of the Estate of William D. Cox, Appellant in No. 74-1609, v. DRAVO CORPORATION, Appellant in No. 74-1576
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** May 29, 1975
- **Citations:** 517 F.2d 620
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Seitz
- **Judges:** Van Dusen, Gibbons, Hunter, Seitz, Aldisert, Adams, Rosenn, Weis, Garth
- **Cited by:** 45 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9461831

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9461831. Public record. Not legal advice.