Supreme Court Denies Writ In Maintenance and Cure Case – McCorpen Defense
Supreme Court Denies Writ
In Maintenance and Cure Case – McCorpen Defense
By: Max Schellenberg
Meche v. Doucet, 777 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2015), writ denied 2015 U.S. LEXIS 5577 (Oct. 5, 2015)
The seaman sought damages under the Jones Act, breach of the warranty of seaworthiness and for maintenance and cure having claimed injury on the defendant’s vessel. The trial court found against him under both the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims but found that he aggravated a pre-existing back condition and awarded maintenance and cure. The court also awarded punitive damages for failure to pay maintenance and cure because of an asset sale agreement between the former employer and current employer maintaining the new employer failed to make any inquiry of his past medical condition.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered the following opinion by Judge Davis:[A]n intervening asset sale does not automatically relieve a seaman from the consequences of his or her prior intentional concealment of material medical information. Because Moncla subjected Meche to a pre-employment medical examination, and because Key acquired Moncla shortly thereafter and relied on its prior medical examination when deciding to retain Meche, Key is entitled to the benefit of the McCorpen defense based on the representations Meche made in his employment application to Moncla. The district court should therefore have applied the objective intentional concealment standard, not the subjective nondisclosure standard.Writs were taken to the Supreme Court and denied on Oct. 5, 2015.
