Axxis Drilling v. Danny M. Grisaffe
Defendant (to this Declaratory Action) Danny M. Grisaffe injured his back while working as a seaman aboard a vessel owned by Axxis Drilling. Following the accident, Axxis discovered Grisaffe had a previous back injury he allegedly concealed from axis.
Grisaffee was involved in an elevator accident and injured his lower back. As a result of that Accident, in 1999, Grisaffee was declared “permanently disabled from medium, heavy, and very heavy work” and that he should limit his activities to light and sedentary activities. Grisaffe was not to lift more than 25 lb.
Axxis filed this Declaratory Action seeking judgment that Grisaffe’s current medical condition is not attributable to and did not arise in the service of any vessel owned by Axxis and that Grisaffee knowingly and willfully concealed a past medical condition. Additionally, Axxis contended they were not liable for any past maintenance and cure nor is Axxis liable to Grisaffee under the Jones Act or general maritime law.
Grisaffe filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action. This Court denied Grisaffe’s motion and Grisaffe filed a motion to reconsider.
Did this Court rule in favor of Axxis and hold that Axxis was not liable for Grisaffe’s injuries based upon concealment of a previous back injury?
Grisaffe argued that reconsideration and dismissal are not appropriate because it still required a speedy resolution to the maintenance and cure issue due to the potential for punitive damages for willful and wanton disregard of maintenance and cure obligations.
Axxis claimed it did not believe it owed maintenance and cure but has paid to avoid the possibility of punitive damages if it were found to have acted with wanton disregard.
However, a motion for reconsideration filed more than 10 days after the entry of the order is treated as a motion for relief. This Court noted that Grisaffe has submitted his maintenance and cure and Jones Act claim together to state court for consideration in front of a jury. Because dismissing the maintenance and cure action, in this Court, would work to deprive Grisaffe of his jury selection, this Court granted Grisaffe’s motion to reconsider and dismiss Axxis’ declaratory action.
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outlines several reasons why a court may relieve a party from an order. (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect (2) newly discovered evidence, that with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial, (3) fraud (4) the judgment is void or (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged.
Steve Gordon
<< PREVNEXT >>
