The Mahone Firm and Scandurro & Layrisson recently obtained a victory in the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on a maritime issue that had not yet been decided in Louisiana.
Kendrick Williams, the firm’s client, filed suit against Associated Terminals and Buck Kreihs Marine Repair LLC in the 25th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines for a 2017 injury occurring on the Myrtle Grove Midstream Terminal, which was located in the Mississippi River at the time of the incident. After being joined to the litigation, Associated Terminals filed a crossclaim against Buck Kreihs for the reimbursement of maintenance and cure benefits paid to Mr. Williams pursuant to maritime law. In 2019, as part of the settlement between Associated Terminals and Mr. Williams, Associated Terminals assigned its maintenance and cure reimbursement claim to Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams then asserted the assigned claim against Buck Kreihs. Buck Kreihs initially fought the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their petition to assert the assigned claim, but the District Court allowed the claim to be asserted. However, in response to the amended petition, Buck Kreihs made a number of arguments as to why the claim should be dismissed, including that it was prescribed, that the MGMT was not a vessel, and that the assertion of the assigned claim would amount to an impermissible double recovery for Mr. Williams (as he had already received maintenance and cure benefits from Associated Terminals).
The matter came for hearing before the District Court in November 2020. Courts had previously held that maintenance and cure reimbursement claims by employers could be asserted against negligent third parties along in addition to claims by injured employees for past medical expenses. The logic behind this position is that, while it may seem duplicative, these were two separate and distinct injuries, one to the employer for having to pay cure (i.e., medical expenses) and one to the employee for having to incur medical expenses, even though these amounts were the same and even though the employer ultimately paid for the treatment.
The District Court in the Williams case nevertheless granted Buck Kreihs’ peremptory exception of no right of action, holding as follows:
“[A]s plaintiff may not be subrogated to the rights of his employer to be reimbursed for maintenance and cure, and because plaintiff has already received maintenance and cure and may not collect it a second time.”
The plaintiffs sought supervisory review from the Fourth Circuit and ultimately had their writ granted. In granting the writ, the Fourth Circuit noted that “Relators alleged facts that provide a remedy under maritime law for Associated Terminals, as Mr. Williams’ employer, to assign its right for reimbursement of maintenance and cure payments to Relators to then assert against BKM. Therefore, we find Relators possessed a right of action.” This decision reinstated the previously dismissed claim and thus expanded the scope of potential damages available to The Mahone Firm’s client.
This decision gives additional settlement options for injured plaintiffs who have claims against their employers, whether under the Jones Act or just for maintenance and cure, and third-party negligence claims. It also highlights the complex issues that can be raised in offshore and maritime personal injury cases.
