Stermer v. Archer – Daniels – Midland Co.

Stermer v. Archer – Daniels – Midland Co. (2014 WL 2515387 June 4, 2014)

By: Adam Deniger

Edited By: Molly MacKenzie

Adrienne Stermer (hereinafter “plaintiff”) filed suit against American River Transportation Company (hereinafter “ARTCO”), its insurer, Agricultural Insurance Company, and Archer – Daniels – Midland Company (hereinafter “Archer”), owner of the M/V COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE and ARTCO’s parent company. Plaintiff began working for ARTCO in November of 2005 as a cook on transport barges traveling between New Orleans and St. Louis. Plaintiff boarded the M/V/ COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE on September 21, 2007 and performed her usual duties as cook on the vessel. On October 9, 2007, plaintiff alleged that she was injured when the vessel was facing up to a tow. She claimed that as the vessel jarred, she lost her balance and fell into a refrigerator injuring her hands and right ankle.Plaintiff did not report the injury until October 14, five days after the injury. She stated the delay in reporting the injury was due to the fact that she did think she was hurt and she was afraid she would be fired if she reported the incident. On October 17, ARTCO transported plaintiff to a hospital in Kentucky where she was diagnosed with bilateral hand and wrist sprains and a right ankle sprain. After returning to the vessel, plaintiff was sent home. The injury was hotly contested by plaintiff’s employers. The vessel’s captain and a deckhand both testified that the injury did not take place.Plaintiff continued having problems with her hand, wrists, and ankle and she was forced to consult Dr. Henderson, a plastic surgeon, about her injuries. Initial treatment helped most of plaintiff’s ailments however the right wrist continued to trouble her. She was diagnosed with a scapholunate ligamentous tear. Plaintiff underwent surgery to repair this problem. Dr. Henderson testified that this injury did not predate the accident and determined that she was at maximum medical cure in March 2011 and assigned her a 35% permanent impairment of her right hand and restricted her to light to medium work. Despite being provided with information concerning plaintiff’s medical treatment, ARTCO continued to refuse to pay her maintenance and cure until March 2010. Another doctor disagreed with Dr. Henderson that plaintiff’s condition did not exist prior to the accident.At trial, the court determined that plaintiff proved she was injured as claimed in the October 9, 2007 accident and awarded her $636,947.00 for loss of past employee benefits, loss of future employee benefits, loss of past wages, loss of future wages, past pain and suffering, and future pain and suffering. The trial court also determined that ARTCO’s refusal to pay maintenance and cure for two and one half years was arbitrary and capricious and awarded her $300,000.00 in punitive damages and $150,000 in attorney fees. Plaintiff failed to prove her claims of unseaworthiness and retaliatory discharge, finding she did not prove those claims. ARTCO appealed the judgment and assigned errors with the awards of punitive damages and attorney fees. Plaintiff answered and requested an increase in the amount for both.The burden of proof in seeking maintenance and cure is very light and is not dependent upon the negligence of the vessel or the owner. A seaman need only prove that the injury arose during his service of the vessel. An employer is entitled to investigate a seaman’s claim for maintenance and cure and they can require corroboration of the claim. An employer’s failure to pay maintenance and cure is reasonable if a diligent investigation indicates that the seaman’s claim is not legitimate or if the seaman does not submit medical reports to document his claim. When the investigation reveals doubts or ambiguities as to whether the seaman is entitled to maintenance and cure, they are resolved in favor of the seaman.ARTCO argues that no injury occurred pointing to the fact that plaintiff did not even report the injury on the day it allegedly occurred. In denying plaintiff’s claim for maintenance and cure, the trial court determined that ARTCO only considered evidence indicating the incident did not occur. ARTCO failed to consider that plaintiff had been on the vessel for nineteen days straight before the injury, she performed her duties with no complaint prior to the injury, two bumps occurred when the vessel was facing up to its tow, plaintiff’s location at the time of injury was corroborated, a statement from an employee stating plaintiff suffered some type of injury, and medical evidence beginning October 17, 2007 and continuing thereafter. Essentially, ARTCO only considered the evidence supporting its side and failed to consider the evidence for plaintiff. Based on these facts, the appellate court found that ARTCO’s investigation was neither diligent nor reasonable and that no manifest error existed in the trial court’s conclusion that ARTCO was arbitrary and capricious in denying plaintiff’s claim for maintenance and cure.ARTCO further argued that it acted properly in denying maintenance and cure because plaintiff did not reveal complaints about her hands, wrists, fingers, and forearms on her December 2005 pre-employment medical history form though she reported having pain and/or numbness in those areas for four years when she sought treatment for carpel tunnel syndrome in August 2006. ARTCO tried to assert the McCorpen defense here which incorporates the notion that if the employer did not require a pre-employment medical examination, the seaman must disclose a pre-existing condition or injury only if he believes the employer would consider it important. If a pre-employment physical is required, the denial of maintenance and cure is only proper if the employer proves that the seaman intentionally or fraudulently concealed a pre-existing condition or injury. ARTCO did not require a pre-employment medical examination and did not show any evidence that plaintiff thought the pain was important enough to report. Plaintiff never complained of pain in performing her duties for two years prior to the accident.The appellate court affirmed the award of punitive damages and granted attorney fees for the appeal but remanded the grant of $150,000 in attorney fees for a proper calculation of the value of the services rendered for the trial court proceeding. Plaintiff’s request for an increase in punitive damages was denied because there was no evidence of an abuse of discretion by the trial court concerning the amount they granted.