Collick v. Weeks Marine, Inc.
Joseph Collick served as a construction worker for Weeks Marine, Inc ("Weeks"). He sustained an injury while he was working on a naval pier. Weeks voluntarily paid medical and wage benefits under the LHWCA. Collick filed a claim to recover compensation benefits from Weeks with the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs and listed his occupation as dockbuilder. In addition to this, Weeks filed suit against Weeks under the Jones Act and the general maritime law. Weeks then terminated the payments it was making to Collick under the LHWCA benefits scheme. In response, Collick filed a motion to compel Weeks to continue paying him benefits under the LHWCA, or in the alternative, to compel Weeks to pay him maintenance and cure.
Should the defendant be compelled to pay benefits under the LHWCA or the general maritime law maintenance and cure?
: The district court first addressed Collick's motion to compel Weeks to pay benefits under the LHWCA. Under the LHWCA, an employer may controvert its liability to pay compensation benefits. When an employed does so, an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducts a hearing and issues an order either granting or rejecting benefits. Here, the plaintiff argues it is obvious that he should receive benefits under the LHWCA or the general maritime law and it runs counter to the policy behind these two schemes to allow the employer to discontinue all benefits until the resolution of the LHWCA-Jones Act issue. Weeks argues that the court lacks jurisdiction over the benefits payment issue because the Department of Labor has exclusive jurisdiction over these matters under the LHWCA. After reviewing the LHWCA, the court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to compel Weeks to pay LHWCA benefits because the act provides that an ALJ makes benefits determinations and appeals of these rulings should be filed with the Benefits Review Board and only in limited circumstances does the district court have the power to step in, none of which apply here.
Next the court considered Collick's request to compel Weeks to provide maintenance and cure. In response, Weeks argues that Collick fails to satisfy the seaman test and therefore is not entitled to the benefits of maintenance and cure. The court, however, denied the motion because the plaintiff improperly filed the motion as a motion to compel and not a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. As such, both parties failed to address the proper standard for injunctive relief and as a result the court lacked sufficient grounds and evidence to decide the issue.A seaman, under general maritime law, can recover maintenance and cure from a vessel owner or employer where the seaman is injured or becomes ill in the service of a ship. Maintenance is the living allowance for a seaman while he is ashore recovering from injury or illness. Cure is the payment of medical expenses incurred in treating the seaman's injury or illness.
<< PREVNEXT >>
