1Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-30982

Summary Calendar

LARRY S. TURNER

Plaintiff-Appellant/

 Cross-Appellee

VERSUS

PENROD DRILLING CORPORATION and

ENSCO OFFSHORE COMPANY

Defendants-Appellees/

 Cross-Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(93-CV-1322)

July 22, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Larry Turner, a Jones Act seaman, injured his back while

lifting a 172-pound oxygen bottle over a six-inch splash guard on

the Penrod 68 drilling rig. Turner sued his employer, Penrod

Drilling Corporation, now known as Ensco Offshore Company, for

Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure.

The district court held that Penrod was not liable under the Jones
2

Act or for unseaworthiness because the injury was caused solely by

Turner’s own negligence. The district court also found that Turner

had not yet reached maximum medical cure and is entitled to

maintenance and cure until he reaches maximum medical cure. Turner

appeals the district court’s finding of no negligence on the part

of Penrod; Penrod appeals the finding of a continuing maintenance

and cure obligation. We affirm.

Because Turner challenges only the district court’s findings

of fact, we review for clear error, that is, we will reverse only

if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake

has been committed and that the district court could not

permissibly find as it did. Brister v. A.W.I., Inc., 946 F.2d 350

(5th Cir. 1991). Under the Jones Act, an employer is liable to its

employees for its negligent acts or omissions that play any part in

producing the seaman’s injury. Id. at 354. A seaman has a slight

duty to protect himself and use reasonable care. Bobb v. Modern

Products, Inc., 648 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir. 1981). The district court

found that Penrod was not even slightly negligent and that Turner’s

negligence was the sole cause of his injuries.

Turner argues that Penrod failed to properly train and

instruct its employees because Penrod did not instruct employees to

obtain assistance when lifting over 50 pounds. We find no clear

error in the district court’s finding that Penrod’s existing

instructions must be applied with common sense and that the absence

of specific instructions does not constitute negligence.

Penrod appeals the district court’s finding that Turner has
3

not reached maximum medical improvement. If a seaman suffers

injury or illness while in the service of his ship, he is entitled

to maintenance and cure from his employer. Davis v. Odeco, 18 F.3d

1237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 78 (1994). The obligation

of an employer to pay maintenance and cure continues until maximum

cure or maximum medical improvement has been obtained. Tullos v.

Resource Drilling, Inc., 750 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1985), overruled in

part on other grounds by Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 111 S.Ct. 317

(1990). Maximum cure is achieved when it appears that the seaman’s

condition is cured or is recognized as incurable, that is, further

treatment will not result in any betterment of the seaman’s

condition and is simply for pain relief. Pelotto v. L & N Towing

Co., 604 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1979). The determination of maximum

cure is an unequivocal medical, as opposed to judicial,

determination. Tullos, 750 F.2d at 388. 

None of Turner’s treating physicians have made an unequivocal

medical determination of maximum medical cure. The district court

found that Turner suffers from a herniated disc, Turner’s

depression and anxiety are related to the back injury, and Turner’s

future medical condition remains uncertain. After reviewing the

record, we find no clear error. 

AFFIRMED.