Determining the Scope of the McCorpen Defense in E.D. La.
All. Marine Servs., LP v. Youman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209455 (E.D. La. Dec. 12, 2018).
By: Gregory Burts
This case arises out of a dispute between Gary Youman, a Jones Act seaman over the payment of maintenance and cure from his employer, Alliance Marine Services (“AMS”). Youman alleges that he was injured while working for AMS. However, Youman failed to disclose a significant portion of his medical history during his United States Coast Guard Pre-Employment Physical ordered by AMS. Considering Youman’s failure to disclose, AMS sought a motion for summary judgment “regarding whether it ha[d] a valid McCorpen defense against Mr. Youman’s claim for maintenance and cure and whether AMS may be held liable for punitive damages for its refusal to fund certain medical treatments.”[1]To establish a McCorpen defense, an employer must show: (1) the claimant intentionally misrepresented or concealed medical facts, (2) the non-disclosed facts were material to the employer’s decision to hire claimant, and (3) a connection exists between the withheld information and the injury complained of in the suit.[2] The court held that because there was no material dispute that Youman failed to disclose his medical history, “the intentional concealment element of the McCorpen defense” was satisfied.[3] The next question was whether AMS’s refusal to pay for medical procedures was “arbitrary and capricious.”[4] On this question the court held that because AMS conducted sufficient inquiry into the accident causing Youman’s alleged injury, that its refusal to pay for the resulting medical expenses was not “arbitrary and capricious, and therefore, punitive damages are not recoverable.”[5]Youman countered that AMS’s investigation of his injury was “overly lax” and a question of material fact existed “based upon the differing opinions” of Youman’s treating neurosurgeon and AMS’s “second medical opinion physician.”[6] The court answered this question, stating that AMS’s reliance on a “conflicting medical opinion” was not “unreasonable, let alone egregious or arbitrary or bad faith conduct.”[7] Thus, the court granted AMS’s motion for partial summary judgment on all counts, and dismissed Youman’s claims for maintenance and cure and punitive damages.[8][1] All. Marine Servs., LP v. Youman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209455, at 11.[2] Brown v. Parker Drilling Offshore Corp., 410 F.3d 166, 171 (5th Cir. 2005).[3] Youman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209455 at 16.[4] Id. at 21.[5] Id.[6] Id. at 24.[7] Id. at 26.[8] Id. at 28.
