Description of the Case: Seaman- Recovery for Cure and Maintenance, Jones Act and Maritime Law- Failure to Compensate Injured Party
Case Name: Robert F. Leija v Penn Maritime, Inc.
Date of Judgment: 30^th March 2009
Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (Civil Division)
Judges: District Judge Lemmon
Citation: 2009 WL 928637 (E.D.La.)

Background: The Plaintiff, Robert Leija ("Seaman") brought suit under the Jones Act and maritime law for damages caused by Penn Maritime ("Employer"). The seaman appealed the lower court's decision that his evidence was insufficient to show a causal connection to his work and the cancer he developed.

Seaman was engaged on a tour of duty on employer's ship. This duty included being exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which he alleged caused him to develop cancer. The seaman's tour of duty ended on June 16, 2006, and he then received unearned wages, vacation time, and daily maintenance.

The seaman had discovered he had cancer while on his tour of duty. The employer was aware of this, but still denied seaman any medical reimbursement. More than two years later, the employer agreed to pay the seaman's co-payment obligations.

Seaman's representative (after seaman's death in 2007) contended that the employer was fully aware of the maintenance and cure claim. As no payments for cure were made until almost two years later, the delay was alleged to be arbitrary and capricious. The employer agreed that he made payment late, but the delay resulted from the representative's failure to provide medical documentation to show the seaman's expenses.

(1) The employer must provide maintenance and cure to the injured seaman regardless of the employer's fault or unseaworthiness of the vessel. However, the seaman received unearned wages, paid vacation time and maintenance for several months after his tour of duty ended. Thus, appropriate maintenance had already been given to the seaman.

(2) The representative presented the employer with the medical documents three months after the seaman's death. Three months after receiving the medical bills, the employer began to pay the seaman's co-payment obligations. Thus, the Court held the employer satisfied its cure obligation to the seaman's representative. His motion for summary judgment was granted.

Significance:

The employer is required to provide maintenance and cure to an injured seaman regardless of the employer's fault or unseaworthiness of the vessel.

However, if the seaman has already received some payment or benefits towards maintenance and cure, then the damages awarded will be lessened or none will be given.

The employer must show that they satisfied both their maintenance and cure obligations within a reasonable time. Delay by the other party in producing necessary documentation will not excuse the employer from his obligations being fulfilled within a sensible period of time.

http://www.offshoreinjuries.com