Court Opinion

ID: 9461831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:25:34.24297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:16.973765
License: Public Domain

SEITZ, Chief Judge
(concurring).
The record in this case establishes that the sole effect of treatments for which plaintiff sought recovery was the relief of pain suffered by Cox. I agree with the disposition of the case on the basis of the majority’s holding that an award of maintenance and cure cannot be sustained on the ground of a shipowner’s duty to provide medical care that can serve only to reduce pain. However, I think it unnecessary and unwise to go out of our way to announce that there is no duty to provide treatment which arrests the progress of a deteriorating physical condition. That issue is not presented by this case and, indeed, is expressly left open by the Supreme Court in Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1, 95 S.Ct. 1381, 43 L.Ed.2d 682 (1975).
Judge Adams joins in this opinion.