Diamond Offshore Managements Co. and Diamond Offshore Services Co. v. Jonathan Cummings
Appellants, Diamond Offshore and Management Company and Diamond Offshore Services Company appeal from a judgment, rendered after a bench trial, in an admiralty case.
Plaintiff, Jonathan Cummings, was an employee of Diamond, defendant. Cummings worked on a jack-up rig owned by Diamond and was injured while being transferred onto a crew boat. Cummings injured his shoulder, neck, and back.
Cummings sued Diamond under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. The trial court found no negligence on Diamond’s part and found that the rig was seaworthy. However, the court found that Cummings’s fall resulted in injuries that required medical treatment in the past but that no past medical expense or cure obligations owed due to a stipulation, entered into by both parties, prior to trial.
The court also found that the fall caused injuries that would require medical treatment in the future and that Cummings would likely incur expenses in the future.
The trial court awarded Cummings cure in the amount of $125,000 and maintenance of $4,500.
Diamond appealed the trial court’s findings.
Was the trial court’s award of future maintenance and cure to plaintiff clear error?
Diamond argued that Cummings right to maintenance and cure ceased because he failed to find or take advantage of curative treatment. Specifically, Diamond contended that Cummings had repeatedly ignored the numerous recommendations of his treating physicians to have lower back surgery, which constituted a refusal to accept curative treatment and an intentional rejection of medical treatment.
This Court, however, found no clear error made by the trial court in determining that Cummings would require future medical care due to those injuries and that he would reach maximum medical improvement (MMI) in about 6-months.
Diamond failed to show that they demonstrated, to Cummings, that they were ready, willing, and able to pay for Cummings’s medical bills that he had incurred. According to this Court, was sufficient evidence to support that Cummings’s failure to have back surgery was something less than a willful rejection. Accordingly, this Court rejected Diamond’s contention that Cummings intentionally avoided medical improvement.
Diamond also argued that the trial court erred in declaring a future MMI date. However, the Dr. had testified that he anticipated Cummings would reach MMI six months after he had surgeries to his neck and lower back.
This Court upheld the trial court’s finding of a future MMI date.
Diamond also argued that the trial court erred in awarding a lump-sum payment for future maintenance and cure. Diamond contended that they were not required to pay a lump-sum by law and even if they were that Cummings’s surgery was a mere possibility.
The Supreme Court, this Court noted, in Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor (303 U.S. 525) that the award of a lump sum in anticipation of a continuing need of maintenance and cure for life or an indefinite period was improper. Because evidence was presented that it was reasonable to believe Cummings would reach MMI in a 6 month period, this Court affirmed the lump sum award of maintenance and cure.
This Court, however, did find that the trial court erred in determining that the amount of future cost for cure and remaining surgery was $112,500. This was because the costs related to back surgery, expressed in Cummings’s Dr’s testimony, could be separated from costs related to neck surgery. However, the work condition and chronic pain management could not because the doctor’s testimony failed to segregate them.
A seaman’s right to maintenance and cure is forfeited by a willful rejection of the recommended medical aid. However, if there are exigent circumstances or reasonable grounds for refusing care or failing to follow instructions are shown, then the employer may be precluded from denying maintenance and cure.
Steve Gordon
<< PREVNEXT >>
