Hicks v. Vane Line Bunkering, Inc.
783 F.3d 939
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Hicks, a deckhand on the tug PATRIOT, injured his shoulder in April 2009 and was diagnosed with a possible rotator cuff tear; he underwent surgery in July 2009 and required ongoing physical therapy.
- Vane Line Bunkering (appellant) initially acknowledged the duty to pay maintenance and cure but paid a low per diem, hired a private investigator to videotape Hicks, and terminated maintenance and cure in May 2010 after showing footage to Hicks’s doctor and asserting (falsely) that the job required only light lifting.
- Financial pressure from inadequate payments forced Hicks to return to work before full recovery, miss some therapy, and contributed to foreclosure and loss of insurance; a second doctor later diagnosed a recurrent rotator cuff tear and recommended further surgery and rehab.
- Hicks sued (Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure); the jury found no negligence and the vessel seaworthy but found a breach of maintenance and cure, awarding unpaid maintenance/cure, past pain and suffering, future maintenance/cure, and punitive damages for willful conduct.
- The district court, relying on the jury’s finding of willfulness, awarded Hicks attorney’s fees; appellant moved for JMOL/new trial and appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for pain-and-suffering damages and whether punitive damages may be awarded in addition to attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported award for pain and suffering caused by breach of maintenance and cure | Hicks: cessation and insufficiency of maintenance/cure prolonged/aggravated injury and caused emotional and financial harms, supporting pain-and-suffering damages | Vane Line: Hicks’s statements show no significant improvement after initial injury; pain stems from original injury, not from failure to pay | Court: Evidence permitted jury to find breach prolonged/aggravation and caused both physical and emotional harms; award sustained (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether punitive damages may be awarded in addition to attorney’s fees in maintenance and cure actions | Hicks: punitive damages are available under maritime common law; fees are separately compensatory for being forced to litigate | Vane Line: punitive damages should be limited to amount of reasonable attorney’s fees (per Kraljic) | Court: Kraljic’s fee-only limit no longer governs after Atlantic Sounding; traditional punitive damages are available in addition to attorney’s fees; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (1962) (discusses award of counsel fees to seaman forced to litigate maintenance and cure claim and characterizes owner conduct as willful/callous)
- Kraljic v. Berman Enter., Inc., 575 F.2d 412 (2d Cir. 1978) (held punitive damages in maintenance and cure cases limited to reasonable attorney’s fees)
- Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (held punitive damages available under federal maritime law)
- Rodriguez Alvarez v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 898 F.2d 312 (2d Cir. 1990) (duty to furnish maintenance and cure continues until full recovery)
- Messier v. Bouchard Transp., 688 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2012) (maintenance and cure extends to aggravation of preexisting illness)
- Hines v. J. A. LaPorte, Inc., 820 F.2d 1187 (11th Cir. 1987) (affirmed punitive damages and fees both awarded in maintenance and cure context)