Source: https://casetext.com/case/washington-v-omega-protein-inc-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:33:03+00:00

Document:
Washington v. Omega Protein Inc.
ROBERT WASHINGTON v. OMEGA PROTEIN INC.
Currently pending before the Court is a motion for partial summary judgment [Doc.6], filed by plaintiff Robert Washington, whereby plaintiff seeks a ruling from this Court that his "maintenance payments be increased to a reasonable rate, and that rate be applied retroactively to the date maintenance was first due." [Id. at 1] For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Although in its answer defendant denies plaintiff was a permanent member of the crew of its vessel, it later avers if plaintiff "sustained any injury or sickness while in the service of a vessel owned and operated by Omega, which is at all times specifically denied, then any recovery by Complainant should be limited to the payment of maintenance and cure and no other damages." [Doc. 22, ¶ 2, p.3 ("Fifth Defense"); see also Doc. 1, ¶3] Within its opposing memorandum, defendant does not argue plaintiff is not a Jones Act seaman, nor does it argue plaintiff is not entitled to maintenance and cure. Accordingly, the Court assumes all parties now agree plaintiff is a seaman to whom an award of maintenance and cure is available pursuant to applicable law.
A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense--or the part of each claim or defense--on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
When seeking summary judgment, the movant bears the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of an issue of material fact with respect to those issues on which the movant bears the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). However, where the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant may merely point to an absence of evidence, thus shifting to the non-movant the burden of demonstrating by competent summary judgment proof that there is an issue of material fact warranting trial. Id. at 322; see also, Moody v. Jefferson Parish School Board, 2 F.3d 604, 606 (5th Cir. 1993); Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 190 (5th Cir.1991). Only when "there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party" is a full trial on the merits warranted. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Where no such showing is made, "[t]he moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof."
[The parties'] burden is not satisfied with 'some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,' by 'conclusory allegations,' by 'unsubstantiated assertions,' or by only a 'scintilla' of evidence. We resolve factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party, but only when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts. We do not, however, in the absence of any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts. ...[S]ummary judgment is appropriate in any case where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant.
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc)(citations and internal quotations omitted).
Finally, in evaluating evidence to determine whether a factual dispute exists, "credibility determinations are not part of the summary judgment analysis." Id. To the contrary, in reviewing all the evidence, the court must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe, and should give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmoving party, as well as that evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached. Roberts v. Cardinal Servs., 266 F.3d 368, 373 (5th Cir. 2001).
"Maintenance and cure is designed to provide a seaman with food and lodging when he becomes sick or injured in the ship's service; and it extends during the period when he is incapacitated to do a seaman's work and continues until he reaches maximum medical recovery." Vaughn v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 531 (1962). "Maintenance and cure are due without regard to the negligence of the employer or the unseaworthiness of the ship. Maintenance is a per diem living allowance, paid so long as the seaman is outside the hospital and has not reached the point of 'maximum cure.'" Gaspard v. Taylor Diving & Salvage Co., Inc., 649 F.2d 372,375 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing Pelotto v.L & N Towing Co., 604 F.2d 396,400 (5th Cir. 1979)). "'[A]mbiguities or doubts in the application of the law of maintenance and cure are resolved in favor of the seaman.'" Breese v. A WI, Inc., 823 F.2d 100,104 (5th Cir. 1987)(quoting Gaspard v. Taylor Diving & Salvage Co., 649 F.2d 372, 374, n. 2 (5th Cir. Jul. 1981)); see also Vaughan at 532.
"[A] seaman injured while in the service of a vessel is entitled to maintenance if he incurred the costs of food and lodging during that period." Hall v. Noble Drilling (U.S.) Inc., 242 F.3d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 2001). "However, if the seaman's actual expenses are not sufficient to afford him food and lodging that are reasonably adequate, the court should award maintenance sufficient to provide reasonable food and lodging, even if the award exceeds the seaman's actual costs." Id. at 588 (citing McWilliams v. Texaco, Inc., 781 F.2d 514, 517-18 (5th Cir. 1986)("Actual expenses do not always provide a satisfactory benchmark, because in many cases a seaman may not have sufficient funds to obtain the land of maintenance which the law provides him.")). "The plaintiff must present evidence to the court that is sufficient to provide an evidentiary basis for the court to estimate his actual costs." Id. at 590. The seaman's burden of production in this regard is '"feather light,' and a court may award reasonable expenses, even if the precise amount of actual expenses is not conclusively proved." Hall at 588 (quoting Yelverton v. Mobile Laboratories, Inc., 782 F.2d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 1986)). However, "[i]f the plaintiff presents no evidence of actual expenses, the plaintiff may not recover maintenance." Hall at 590.
The Hall court cited three cases for this statement of law. Two of those cases involved seamen who convalesced with their parents, and incurred no expenses or liabilities. See Marine Drilling, Inc. v. Landry, 302 F.2d 127, 128 (5th Cir. 1962); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 46, 50 (1948). The third case involved a seaman who was treated at a marine hospital for disabled seaman, for which he incurred no expense. Field v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 104 F.2d 849, 851 (5th cir. 1939).
First, the court must estimate two amounts: the plaintiff seaman's actual costs of food and lodging; and the reasonable cost of food and lodging for a single seaman in the locality of the plaintiff. In determining the reasonable costs of food and lodging, the court may consider evidence in the form of the seaman's actual costs, evidence of reasonable costs in the locality or region, union contracts stipulating a rate of maintenance or per diem payments for shoreside food or lodging while in the service of a vessel, and maintenance rates awarded in other cases for seamen in the same region. A seaman need not present evidence of the reasonable rate; a court may take judicial notice of the prevailing rate in the district.
Second, the court must compare the seaman's actual expenses to reasonable expenses. If actual expenses exceed reasonable expenses, the court should award reasonable expenses. Otherwise, the court should award actual expenses. Thus, the general rule is that seamen are entitled to maintenance in the amount of their actual expenses on food and lodging up to the reasonable amount for their locality.
payments does not prevent Mm from recovering enough to afford himself reasonable sustenance and shelter.
Hall v. Noble Drilling (U.S.) Inc., 242 F.3d 582, 590 (5th Cir. 2001) (footnotes omitted; emphasis added).
"If the seaman's food and lodging are both reasonable in quality and free, he is entitled to no maintenance from the shipowner." Hall at 588. "[W]hen the seaman has made 'an expressed intention' to pay for lodging and food, even if the obligation is not legally enforceable, the seaman may recover maintenance." Id. (citing McWilliams v. Texaco, Inc., 781 F.2d 514, 517-18 (5th Cir. 1986)). "[A] seaman may only present evidence of expenditures on food eaten by himself. If division of family food expenses is difficult, prorating the costs is an appropriate method of estimation." Id. at 589. Lodging includes those expenses '"necessary to the provision of habitable housing,' such as heat, electricity, home insurance, and real estate taxes." Id. at 590 (citing Gillikin v. United States, 764 F.Supp. 270, 273 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)). "Other expenses, such as telephone service, clothing, toiletries, and travel, are not part of maintenance." Id. "[I]f the seaman does not pay for the entire amount of the lodging costs, the seaman cannot recover for the entire amount. . . ." Hall at 589, n.30.
And that such payments total $1207.03 per month, or $40.23 per day.
[Doc. 6-6] Plaintiff submits no other relevant evidence in support of his claim for/of $40.23 per day in maintenance expenses.
According to plaintiff's counsel, plaintiff lives with his wife; according to defense counsel, plaintiff lives with his girlfriend. [Docs. 27, p.5; 32-4, p.2] Regardless, all submitted utility bills are in the name of "Angela C. Brown," and according to defense counsel, the lease is in Ms. Brown's name as well. [Doc. 32-4, pp. 2-3] While perhaps the inference defense counsel wishes this Court to make is that plaintiff does not contribute to the utility bills or monthly lease/rental payments, plaintiff's testimony is that he incurs these charges, and he has presented some documentary evidence to support this testimony. More importantly, counsel for defendant has not shown plaintiff's testimony is not accurate. Again, "ambiguities or doubts in the application of the law of maintenance and cure are resolved in favor of the seaman." Breese at 104; see also Vaughan at 532.
Plaintiff testified his partner contributes towards the electric bill. [Doc. 32-5, p.3] The costs of utilities can be prorated only if they increase the seaman's utility expenses were he living alone. Hall at 589 ("If a seaman would incur the lodging expenses of the home even if living alone, then the entire lodging expense represents the seaman's actual expenses); id. at n.31 (to the extent additional family members do not increase a seaman's expenses, proration is not appropriate; citing as an example that "the costs of heating a home may be lower when more people occupy the same space"). Plaintiff testified these were his utility costs; defendant has presented no evidence or argument that plaintiff's utility costs have increased by virtue of his sharing a home with his partner. Additionally, "maintenance awards should depend on the reasonable cost of food and lodging for a seaman living alone in the seaman's locality." Hall at 587-88.
Q. When you go grocery shopping how do you pay for your groceries?
Q. When Ms. Brown goes grocery shopping does she use her ATM card?
Q. So she would have a record of what she pays for.
Q. And who goes to the grocery more, you or she?
Accordingly, plaintiff's actual maintenance expenses are $28.51 per day.
No evidence has been submitted by either party with regard to the reasonable cost of food and lodging for a single seaman living in plaintiff's locality. However, as previously noted, "[i]n determining the reasonable costs of food and lodging, the court may consider evidence in the form of the seaman's actual costs,. . ., and maintenance rates awarded in other cases for seamen in the same region." Hall at 590. Additionally, as previously noted, "[a] seaman need not present evidence of the reasonable rate; a court may take judicial notice of the prevailing rate in the district." Id.
The Court has determined plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to show his actual maintenance costs are $28.51 per day. With regard to maintenance rates awarded in other cases, in more recent years, courts sitting in the Western District of Louisiana have approved maintenance rates ranging from $20.00 to $40.00 per day. See e.g. Leger v. Offshore Staffing Sendees of Acadania, 2012 WL 525477, *1 (W.D.La.)($25.00 per day); Manderson v. diet Morrison Contractors, Inc., 2010 WL 3035491, *8 (W.D.La.)($40.00 per day); Reed v. Ensco Offshore Co., 2008 WL 1733663, *2 (W.D.La.)($20.00 per day); Theodile v. Delmar Systems, Inc., 2007 WL 2491808 (W.D.La.) ($20.00 per day); Green v. SHRM Catering, Inc., 710 F.Supp. 174, 176 (W.D.La,1987)($23.47 per day); Baum v. Transworld Drilling Co., 612 F.Supp. 1555, 1555 (W.D.La.,1985)($20.00 per day); see also Hall at 591 (upholding district court's finding that maintenance rates of $30.50 and $31.50 were reasonable amounts for single seaman living in Petal and Columbia, Mississippi, and noting that reasonable awards of $15.00 or $20.00 a day in the late 1970s and early 1980s were equivalent to approximately $38.55 and $36.68, respectively, in 1999 dollars).
In this matter, plaintiff does not argue his "actual expenses [are] inadequate to provide him with reasonable food and lodging. . . ." Hall at 590. Therefore, "plaintiff is entitled to the amount that the court has determined is the reasonable cost of food and lodging" Id., i.e. $28.51 per day based upon the evidence presented. Accordingly, the Court finds plaintiff is entitled to $28.51 per day in maintenance payments, to be applied retroactively to the date maintenance was first due.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers Lafayette, Louisiana this 25th day of September, 2012.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.