Trial Court Details Recoverable M&C Expenses

Moran v. Signet Maritime Corp., 2023 WL 2971768; 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66461 * (Civil Case No. H-21-4214, S.D. Tex. April 17, 2023, Rosenthal, J.)

            Charles Moran, a captain employed by Signet Maritime Corp., after reporting to work tripped and fell on his way to get a haircut, breaking his foot.[1] He filed suit in state court seeking maintenance and cure, damages for wrongful discharge, unearned wages, punitive damages for refusal to pay maintenance and cure and found.[2] The suit was removed to federal court on the basis of diversity.[3] Defendant removed the suit asserting that the claim was for maintenance and cure and not a claim for damages based on the Jones Act. As diversity and jurisdictional amount were met, the suit could be removed.[4] Prior to trial, Judge Lee Rosenthal dismissed the claim for punitive damages finding no evidence that the employer was callous in failing to pay maintenance and cure.[5]

            The case proceeded to trial before a jury which determined that Moran’s injuries were sustained in the service of the vessel and that he was not wrongfully terminated.[6] After the jury returned its verdict, the court held a one-day trial to determine the amount of maintenance and cure as well as what elements could be recovered.

            Maintenance: 

a.      Groceries: Moran claimed maintenance for groceries at $150 per week which was what was spent on himself and his brother with whom he lived.[7] The judge noted that the U.S.D.A. considered $376.70 a month as reasonable for a man of his age.[8] He allowed $75 per week for Moran not including his brother.[9]

b.     Lodging: The parties did not dispute the amount of $1,621.06 per month when he lived on a boat which was subsequently repossessed.[10] He bought a camp trailer also but was also living with his brother part of the time as well as on his boat prior to its repossession.[11] The employer is not responsible for the camp trailer.[12]

c.      Other Expenses: He also sought to recover expenses for his truck, cell-phone service, and internet service.[13] Judge Rosenthal stated that he was not persuaded these are maintenance expenses.[14]

 Cure:

            Moran sought recovery for treatment to his ankle, shoulder and back.[15] He was awarded recovery for the ankle but not for the shoulder and back as he did not report those injuries until months after the fall.[16]

 Mileage:

            Mileage at the IRS rate of $.16 per mile for2021 and $.18 per mile were awarded but not for mileage for visits to physicians in Texas prior to his return to Louisiana after the accident.[17]

 Offset to Medical Expenses:

            Moran received short and long-term disability benefits from MetLife.[18] Signet attempted to off-set these payments with its maintenance and cure obligation.[19] As Signet failed to prove that these payments were made to indemnify the employee against Signet’s liability, the offset was denied.[20]

Unearned Wages:

            The court awarded $16,300 in unearned wages.[21]

Prejudgment Interest:

            As prejudgment interest is the rule in maritime law, the court awarded it based on the Texas Financial Code which provides that “prejudgment interest accrues on the amount of a judgment during the period beginning on the earlier of the 180th day after the date the defendant receives written notice of a claim or the date the suit is filed and ending on the day preceding the date judgment is rendered.”[22]

---

[1] 2023 WL 2971768 at *1.

[2] See: Notice of Removal and attachments at 2021 WL 9476608 (S.D.Tex.) .

[3] Id. 

[4] In the Notice of Removal, Signet relied on Dowdy v. Am. Dredging Co., 1983 WL 188036, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 1983); In re Dutile, 935 F.2d 61, 63 (5th Cir. 1991) and an article by Prof. David Robertson, 68 Tex. L. Rev. 93 (1990).

[5] 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139455 *; 2022 AMC 243; 2022 WL 3140500 (S.D. Tex. 2022).

[6] 2023 WL 2971768 at *3.

[7] Id. at *3 (C, 20).

[8] Id. *3.

[9] Id. at *3 (C, 21).

[10] Id. at *3 (C, 22).

[11] Id. at *3 (C, 24).

[12] Id.

[13] Id. 

[14] Id. 

[15] Id. at (D, 1, 25).

[16] Id. at (D, 1, 34).

[17] Id. at (D, 3, 41, 42).

[18] Id. at *1 (I, A, 7).

[19] Id. at *7 (B, 47).

[20] Id. Judge Rosenthal based this conclusion on the Fifth Circuit precedent of Davis v. Odeco, Inc., 18 F.3d 1237 (5th Cir. 1994).

[21] 2023 WL 2971768at *3 (19).

[22] Id. at *7 (49) citing TEX. FIN. CODE § 304.104.