Adams v. Liberty Maritime Corporation
2:16-cv-05352
| E.D.N.Y | Sep 12, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Francis Adams, a seaman aboard M/V Liberty Eagle (owned by Liberty Maritime), developed progressive leg swelling and respiratory complaints in October 2013 while near Port of Sudan and thereafter.
- Captain McAuliffe allegedly failed to record or accurately report Adams’s symptoms to Future Care (a telemedicine contractor) and delayed shore-side evacuation until October 30, 2013 (off Portugal).
- Adams was evacuated and treated by Dr. Duarte (emergency medicine) and later by cardiologist Dr. Chang; he alleges causation/exacerbation of cardiac and respiratory conditions due to the shipboard response.
- Defendants moved to: (a) exclude expert opinion from plaintiff’s treating physicians for discovery/noncompliance reasons, and (b) obtain summary judgment on multiple claims (including against Future Care, negligence per se from medical log omissions, maintenance & cure recovery, and punitive damages/attorney’s fees against Liberty).
- The parties consented to a bench trial; the court conducted a plenary review of discovery and depositions (including a de bene esse deposition of Dr. Duarte).
- Rulings summary: Court denied exclusion of treating-physician testimony, granted summary judgment for Future Care, granted summary judgment as to negligence-per-se claim based on medical-log omissions, limited maintenance-and-cure recovery to out-of-pocket amounts (not those paid by third parties), and denied Liberty’s summary judgment on punitive damages/attorney’s fees pending trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of treating physicians' expert testimony | Treating doctors may give causation/exacerbation opinions without a Rule 26 expert report | Testimony should be excluded/limited due to lack of expert disclosure and potential prejudice | Denied exclusion; treating physicians may testify at bench trial (deference limited by Daubert principles; trial judge will monitor reliability) |
| Medical-log negligence per se | Ship’s failure to record injuries violates Coast Guard duties and supports negligence-per-se | Medical log is an internal record (not the official log); recordkeeping violations did not cause injury | Summary judgment for defendants as to negligence per se from log omissions (log may still be admissible for other probative purposes) |
| Liability of Future Care, Inc. | Future Care liable for negligent telemedicine advice | Future Care contracted independent-contractor physicians and not vicariously liable | Summary judgment for Future Care (no employer liability for torts of independent contractors) |
| Maintenance & cure recoverable amounts (collateral source) | Adams seeks full medical bills ($300,111.32) including amounts paid by union/insurer | Shipowner argues collateral-source bars recovery of amounts paid by third parties | Shipowner entitled to summary judgment as to amounts paid by third parties; Adams may recover out-of-pocket amounts he paid or remains obligated to pay and unpaid maintenance if proven at trial |
| Punitive damages & attorney’s fees / Liberty’s vicarious liability for captain | Adams seeks punitive damages/fees for willful denial of medical care and record concealment; argues Liberty liable | Liberty argues vicarious liability/punitive exposure requires ratification or limited principal liability; no negligent-hiring evidence | Denied as to Liberty: factual questions (captain’s managerial role, ratification, culpability) preclude summary judgment; issue reserved for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2001) (district courts have broad discretion to enforce local rules on summary judgment submissions)
- Giannullo v. City of N.Y., 322 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (court must independently review the record even when Rule 56.1 counterstatement is deficient)
- Jackson v. Fed. Express, 766 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2014) (distinguishing Giannullo where movant's facts were supported by record citations)
- Salas v. United States, 165 F.R.D. 31 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) (treating physicians may testify as experts without a written expert report)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (expert admissibility standard requires reliability and relevance)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (opinions must not rest on an impermissible analytical gap between data and conclusions)
- Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (rigorous inquiry into expert’s methodology and application is required)
- Calmar S. S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525 (1938) (historical statement of owner’s duty to provide maintenance and cure)
- Messier v. Bouchard Transp., 688 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2012) (scope and remedial nature of maintenance and cure explained; liberal interpretation for seamen)
- Moran Towing & Transp. Co. v. Lombas, 58 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 1995) (seaman’s right to cure is not subject to the collateral-source rule)
- Atl. Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (punitive damages and attorney’s fees may be available for failure to provide maintenance and cure)
- Hicks v. Tug PATRIOT, 783 F.3d 939 (2d Cir. 2015) (attorney’s fees available where refusal to pay maintenance and cure was willful)
- CEH, Inc. v. F/V Seafarer, 70 F.3d 694 (1st Cir. 1995) (discussing principal liability for managerial agents and exemplary damages frameworks)