QCR Winter 2021: Witbart v Mandara SPA (Hawaii), LLC - 28.09.2021
Courts not required to construe disputed medical evidence in seamen's favor in maintenance and cure cases.
The plaintiff, Sarabeth Witbart, filed suit against Mandara Spa under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law for failure to provide maintenance and cure for the condition in her neck and spine. The lower court determined that Mandara Spa had proven the McCorpen defense. The McCorpen defense to a maintenance and cure claim is that the seafarer intentionally concealed and/or misrepresented pertinent medical facts and the undisclosed facts would have materially impacted the employer's hiring decision, and there is a connection between the seafarer's injury and the undisclosed information (1). The district court found against Ms Witbart on all of these elements.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that pursuant to Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (1962), courts hearing maintenance cases are required to construe disputed medical evidence in the seaman's favor. The Court stated that Vaughan v Atkinson resolved an ambiguity in favor of a seafarer regarding the amount of maintenance and cure owed by the shipowner, but not all ambiguities. The Court also affirmed that the standard in McCorpen was the correct standard to apply.
This case is a good reminder of the McCorpen defense, a defense which is critical for defendants to assert whenever possible in maintenance and cure cases. Moreover, while this decision was unpublished, it is noteworthy as it provides an important angle for a defendant to respond to a seafarer’s inevitable argument that disputed evidence should be resolved in the seafarer’s favor.
(1) McCorpen v. Central Gulf S.S. Corp., 396 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1968)
You may also be interested in:
Tyler Tanner of Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel and Noreen Arralde of Thomas Miller (Americas) explain why it is time to retire the Maintenance and Cure Jury Instructions.
No Suit For You (Volume II)
How a Jones Act seafarer was barred from suing a London-based P&I insurer directly.
A Direct Order Can Cost in Court
Can a crewmember who sustains an injury while following the orders of a supervisor be held responsible for their own negligence in carrying out those orders? Rosa Ostrom, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, and Jennifer Porter, the UK P&I Club, wade through the various jurisdictional takes on the Direct Order doctrine.
No Suit for You: U.S. Eleventh Circuit Prohibits Contribution Claims Against the U.S. Government for Oil Spill Cleanup Costs
Savage Servs. Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. No. 21-10745 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2022).