Further, a seaman who becomes ill or injured while in the service of a vessel due to the fault of the seaman’s employer, is entitled to compensation for the seaman’s injuries, lost wages, and loss of earning capacity.

If you are a seafarer or crewmember who is NOT covered by the Jones Act, we can still help. In such situations, your rights are generally laid out, in significant part, in your contract of employment and/or CBA. These are critical documents we would want to see in any injury case, so make sure you always maintain a copy.

Cruise workers’ claims encompass the rights of a crew member aboard any type of vessel. To be considered a “seaman,” the worker must aid in the navigation of the vessel or contribute to the mission of the vessel. For example, entertainers aboard cruise ships are considered seamen because they aid in the mission of the vessel – which is to provide cruise vacations. Also, the worker must spend a significant amount (generally 35% or more) of his or her time working on a vessel, rather than on land. Although the work performed might not always be on the water, if a “vessel” is not involved, it is unlikely that the worker will be considered a seaman. In addition, a non-seaman worker performing traditional seaman’s work might also be considered a seaman for the purposes of the law.

To qualify as a seaman under federal maritime law, a worker must spend at least 30% of their work time contributing to a vessel’s function or mission on navigable waters. This definition has been refined through decades of maritime law precedent and is enforced by federal agencies including the U.S. Department of Transportation, which oversees maritime safety and worker protection standards through its Maritime Administration division.

If you have become ill or have suffered an injury while working onboard a vessel, or on land while in the service of a vessel, a boating accident attorney at our firm will help you recover the maximum compensation to which you are entitled under the law.

John Simeonoff injured his foot while crab fishing on a commercial vessel, the F/V SAGA (“SAGA”). With the aid of a cruise ship injury lawyer, Simeonoff brought a claim pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688 et seq., and general maritime law against the SAGA and ship owners, Clare and Todd Hiner (“Hiners”) claiming negligence and unseaworthiness. After a bench trial, the district court found the SAGA and the Hiners seventy percent negligent, and Simeonoff thirty percent negligent. The court found $163,500 in total damages and, reducing that by thirty percent, awarded $114,450 to Simeonoff.

On appeal, Simeonoff argued that the district court erred in finding appellant contributorily negligent. The appeals court reversed the district court’s judgment on this issue. The court found that Simeonoff could not be held contributorily negligent for responding to an urgent, yet general, call to the vessel’s crew for assistance; therefore, the district court clearly erred by reducing his monetary award based on a finding of contributory negligence.

Burden of Proof on Shipowner

Luigi Malta was injured while working on a ship owned by the Defendant United States of America. After the plaintiff Malta received treatment, the defendant USA’s doctor declared that Mr. Malta had achieved maximum medical cure. A second doctor disagreed as to no further medical care being needed and recommended a second operation on the plaintiff’s knee. The plaintiff sued, seeking maintenance and cure benefits based on the second opinion as to the need for surgery.

The case was tried to the court in Malta v the United States 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4769 (March 30, 2001). Both doctors testified during the bench trial. The court found that both were credible and that they simply had a difference of opinion.

Thus, relying on the defendant’s burden to prove unequivocally that the plaintiff had reached the maximum medical cure, the court found for the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s expert testified that he hoped a second surgery on the plaintiff’s knee would both alleviate the plaintiff’s pain and improve the functioning of the plaintiff’s knee. Since the surgery was not to be merely palliative, the plaintiff was entitled to receive maintenance and cure.

Equally strong evidence supported each party’s position; thus, the outcome turned on who bore the burden of proof. The burden, and thus the loss, fell on the defendant.

The principles applied in this decision are extremely important both to ship owners and to seaman. A seaman should get a second opinion from another doctor in those situations where he or she feels that they have not made a satisfactory recovery. Shipowners and employers of seamen should follow the suggestions of the doctor giving the second opinion even if they agree with the primary doctor’s opinion.

Seaman’s Maintenance Rate Includes Seaman’s Full Mortgage Expense

In HALL and STUART v NOBLE DRILLING (U.S.)INC.; NOBLE DRILLING SERVICES, INC., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 2149 (C.A. 5th Circuit) February 14, 2001, a landmark appellate decision was handed down on the issue of maintenance including a seaman’s full mortgage payment.

Both Hall and Stuart worked on offshore rigs when they were injured. Suits were filed which included claims for maintenance. The cases were consolidated for a trial on the issue of the daily maintenance rate. Maintenance is money that an injured seaman receives for food and shelter until the point of maximum medical improvement is declared.

Both Hall and Stuart lived with their families and both were obligated to pay the full mortgages for their houses. The shipping companies argued that the mortgage payments should be prorated with the other family members and only that portion applying to the seaman included in the maintenance rate. The appellate court rejected this position and reasoned that would result in a seaman who lived alone in a large home getting one hundred percent of his mortgage but that a seaman who lived with a family in a small home and for whom prorating was applied receiving much less even though the smaller home had a much smaller mortgage than the larger home.

 

Also, the appellate court indicated that prorating would cause problems if a new child was born or part of the family moved out. Different prorating would have to be done based on the number of people in the house, which would add to the difficulty in establishing a daily maintenance rate.

The appellate court noted that if the full mortgage payment were not paid the seaman would lose his house.

All in all, this is a very good decision for seamen. Unfortunately, it does not apply in those circumstances where there is a union and a collective bargaining agreement. These collective bargaining agreements typically limit maintenance to $8 a day. This is a totally unreasonable amount of money and is carried over from rates that were agreed to in the 1950s.

Injured seamen should gather up their housing expenses including mortgage payments, electricity, water, gas, insurance, property taxes, and submit them to their employer. The employers should look into whether or not these expenses are increased to the presence of other family members.