Opinion ID: 796138
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nautical's Cross-Appeal

Text: 25 We first address Nautical's contention that, because the district court denied Jauch's claim for maintenance and cure, it erred in awarding him damages for past medical expenses. Nautical suggests that allowing Jauch to recover damages for past medical expenses based on Nautical's negligence would allow him to get through the back door (special damage award), what he could not get through the front door (cure). It is well-settled, however, that the seaman's right to receive, and the shipowner's duty to pay, maintenance and cure is independent of any other source of recovery for the seaman ( e.g., recovery for Jones Act claims). 16 Accordingly, the district court's denial of Jauch's claim for maintenance and cure had no legal effect on his entitlement to recover Jones Act damages for his past medical expenses. 26