Opinion ID: 7377
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Doctrine of Maintenance and Cure

Text: 8 When a seaman becomes ill or injured while in the service of his ship, the shipowner must pay him maintenance and cure regardless of whether the shipowner was at fault or whether the ship was unseaworthy. See Morales v. Garijak, Inc., 829 F.2d 1355, 1358 (5th Cir.1987). Maintenance is the right of a seaman to food and lodging if he falls ill or becomes injured while in the service of the ship. Cure is the right to necessary medical services. This duty to pay maintenance and cure is of ancient vintage, and its origin is customarily traced back to the medieval sea codes. See The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158, 169, 23 S.Ct. 483, 484-85, 47 L.Ed. 760 (1903); see generally Grant Gilmore & Charles L. Black, Jr., The Law of Admiralty Sec. 6-6, at 281 (2d ed. 1975); Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law Sec. 6-28, at 348 (2d ed. 1994). Only seamen can assert the right to maintenance and cure, but the legal test for seaman status in maintenance and cure actions is the same as the inquiry for standing under the Jones Act. See, e.g., Hall v. Diamond M Co., 732 F.2d 1246, 1248 (5th Cir.1984) (The standard for determining seaman status for the purposes of maintenance and cure is the same as that established for determining status under the Jones Act.). 9 In the United States, the doctrine of maintenance and cure appears to have been recognized by Justice Story in two cases which he decided while riding on circuit. See Harden v. Gordon, 11 F.Cas. 480 (C.C.D.Me.1823) (No. 6,047); Reed v. Canfield, 20 F.Cas. 426 (C.C.D.Mass.1842) (No. 11,641). These cases generally explain the seaman's right to maintenance and cure partly on humanitarian grounds and partly on economic grounds. As Gilmore and Black write: 10 The doctrine not only protected the childlike and improvident seaman (who is usually poor and friendless and apt to acquire habits of gross indulgence, carelessness and improvidence), but served the great public policy of preserving this important class of citizens for the commercial service and maritime defence of the nation. Even the shipowners derived an ultimate benefit from being made to assume these charges, since, as Story shrewdly pointed out, seamen were thereby encouraged to engage in perilous voyages with more promptitude, and at lower wages. 11 Gilmore & Black, supra, Sec. 6-6, at 281 (quoting Harden v. Gordon, 11 F.Cas. 480 (C.C.D.Me.1823) (Case No. 6,047)) (footnote omitted). This obligation to provide maintenance and cure embraces not only the obligation to pay a subsistence allowance and to reimburse the seaman for medical expenses he incurs; the employer must take all reasonable steps to insure that the seaman who is injured or ill receives proper care and treatment. Schoenbaum, supra, Sec. 6-28, at 348; see also Morales, 829 F.2d at 1358.