Opinion ID: 71840
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Future Maintenance and Cure

Text: Maintenance and cure are remedies uniquely available to injured seamen, with a “venerable history in the jurisprudence of admiralty.” Hall v. Noble Drilling (U.S.), Inc., 242 F.3d 582, 586 (5th Cir. 2001). Maintenance “entitles an injured seaman to food and lodging of the kind and quality he would have received aboard the ship,” while cure “encompasses not only the obligation to reimburse medical expenses actually incurred, but also to ensure that the seaman receives the proper treatment and care.” Boudreaux v. United States, 280 F.3d 461, 468 (5th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Courts have granted maintenance awards to injured seamen, like Pallis, who did not receive food or lodging during their employment. Hall, 242 F.3d at 587. Courts have long held that maintenance “extends beyond the end of the seaman’s voyage to the time of maximum cure.” Id. at 586. A seaman reaches maximum cure when “it is probable that further treatment will result in no betterment in the claimant’s condition.” Rashidi v. Am. President Lines, 96 F.3d 124, 128 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Lirette v. K&B Boat Rentals, Inc., 579 F.2d 968, 10 Case: 09-40088 Document: 00511045781 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/09/2010 No. 09-40088 970 (5th Cir. 1978) (affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment to an injured seaman for claim of maintenance until maximum cure). Pallis made his claim for maintenance and cure during the bench trial. The district court heard testimony from Pallis that he received maintenance of $8 per day between his injury and trial, as required by his union contract. The district court found that Pallis had a current earning capacity for performing light, clerical work, and combined this finding with its award of future medical expenses (for anticipated knee surgery), to conclude that Pallis could not recover future maintenance and cure. Pallis argues on appeal that the district court clearly erred when it denied his maintenance claim because the district court awarded Pallis future medical expenses, and an award for future medical expenses necessarily implies that Pallis will require time for convalescence and maintenance should be awarded until “maximum cure.” Pallis points to the Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions–Civil, § 4.11, and claims that he is entitled to future maintenance payments during his period of convalescence from future surgery. In Boudreaux, a district court denied an injured seaman’s motion for maintenance and cure because it had previously awarded future medical expenses. 280 F.3d at 469. We reversed because of the illogical nature of the district court’s award: Given the court’s determination that Boudreaux still needed therapy to improve his mental condition, it could not have concluded that he had reached maximum medical cure. . . . As the court found that further treatment would, in fact, improve Boudreaux’s condition, it necessarily follows that he has not reached maximum medical cure. Id. The Boudreaux court remanded for a determination of “maintenance in the amount [the district court] determines to be reasonable.” Id. Boudreaux guides our disposition. It is true, as the United States argues, 11 Case: 09-40088 Document: 00511045781 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/09/2010 No. 09-40088 that a seaman may recover maintenance for “only such amounts as may be needful in the immediate future for the maintenance and cure of a kind and for a period which can be definitely ascertained.” Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 531–32 (1938). When the district court found that Pallis would incur medical expenses for physical therapy and for a full knee replacement, however, it implied a definite period of time for the completion of that treatment. Lirette, 579 F.2d at 970 (rejecting a shipowner’s argument that an award of maintenance until maximum cure was indefinite). We hold that the district court erred when it refused to award Pallis future maintenance. Pallis failed to dispute the district court’s denial of his request for cure. It is clear from Boudreaux that an award of future medical expenses is not duplicative of cure because the former sounds in tort while the latter is a contractual remedy. 280 F.3d at 469. However, because Pallis did not appeal the district court’s denial of his cure claim, we do not address this matter on appeal.