300 P.3d 815
Wash.2013Background
- Ian Dean, a seaman, worked on FCA's fishing vessel Alaska Juris and suffered hand and neck pain.
- FCA paid Dean maintenance and cure for about three years after his injury; payments ceased after FCA obtained a physician's opinion that Dean's injuries reached maximum cure.
- Dean's own physician later opined that additional treatment could benefit his injuries.
- Dean filed suit in King County Superior Court for personal injury under the Jones Act and maintenance and cure; he moved to reinstate maintenance and cure.
- The trial court treated the motion as summary judgment and denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Supreme Court reverses, holding that a summary judgment standard is improper for reinstatement motions and clarifies the proper procedures and burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment is proper for a motion to reinstate maintenance and cure | Dean argues Vaughan requires a different standard favoring seamen. | FCA contends summary judgment is appropriate to resolve max-cure issues. | Summary judgment is generally inappropriate for reinstatement motions. |
| What standard applies after a shipowner stops maintenance and cure and a seaman seeks reinstatement | Dean should receive reinstatement unless unequivocal max-cure evidence exists. | FCA can meet burden with unequivocal max-cure proof or expedited trial under CR 42(b). | Trial court should reinstate unless unequivocal max-cure evidence, or expedited trial with burden on shipowner. |
| What procedural mechanism governs termination of maintenance and cure after termination and a reinstatement motion | Dean's motion should be resolved in the seaman's favor pending trial. | Shipowner can seek an expedited CR 42(b) proceeding to show max-cure. | Expedited trial is available; otherwise, reinstatement ordered pending proof of max-cure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1 (1975) (maintenance and cure duty broad and protective of seamen)
- Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 174 Wn.2d 70 (2012) (defines maintenance and cure duty and maximum cure concept under Washington law)
- The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158 (1903) (establishes seaman's right to maintenance and cure with three justifications)
- Taylor v. S.S., 303 U.S. 525 (1938) (classic justification for maintenance and cure; broad, protective doctrine)
- Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 318 U.S. 724 (1943) (duty of maintenance and cure is broad and may accrue despite fault)
- Mabrey v. Wizard Fisheries, Inc., No official reporter available (2007) (discusses reinstatement context (unreported; cited for context))