Background: This case arose out of an injury that occurred while the plaintiff, Gregory Edmond, was employed as an oiler aboard the derrick barge DB WILLIAM KALLOP. The barge was located off the coast of Houma, Louisiana.

The injury occurred when Edmond was asked to use a rope to manually pull a Wilden pump out of the water and onto the barge. He alleged that he suffered severe injuries as a result of this incident.

Edmond asserted claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law. He claimed that the defendant, Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc. ("Offshore") was negligent and that the vessel was unseaworthy. Edmond moved for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to maintenance and cure, and that he was a seaman who was injured while in service of Offshore's barge.

Offshore argued that there were genuine issues of material fact surrounding Edmond's maintenance and cure claim. Based on a medical report from February 2008, Offshore claimed that the injury Edmond complained of was a pre-existing injury. Thus, Offshore argued that there were unresolved facts regarding Edmond's injury and summary judgment should be denied.

Issue: Whether the Court will grant Edmond's motion for summary judgment.

Held:
This Court held that Offshore was entitled to investigate the claim for maintenance and cure before they paid the money to Edmond.

Offshore stated that Edmond had a pre-existing condition, and the accident on the barge did not cause his injury.  Offshore presented a medical report that suggested there was a prior injury. Although Edmond cited medical reports that showed his current injury was from pulling up the Wilden pump, this was a factual dispute reserved for the jury.

Therefore, there were genuine issues of material fact concerning Edmond's entitlement to maintenance and cure, and summary judgment on this issue was not appropriate.

Comments:

When there are ambiguities or doubts about a seaman's right to receive maintenance and cure, they are usually resolved in favor of the seaman.  However, in the present case there was material evidence that suggested Edmond's injury was caused by a pre-existing condition. Should there have been no material evidence, it is likely the Court would have found in favor of Edmond.

When there are conflicting diagnoses from various physicians, there is a question of fact to be determined by the jury as to the plaintiff's entitlement to maintenance and cure benefits. As seen in this case, each party presented a different physician's report. This Court had to allow the jury to hear both reports and then make a determination.

Steve Gordon
http://www.offshoreinjuries.com