Messier v. Bouchard Transportation
688 F.3d 78
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Messier, a seaman, developed lymphoma during maritime service on the Evening Mist but symptoms appeared after service.
- Messier filed negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure claims; other claims were dismissed or narrowed by the district court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Bouchard, ruling Messier was not entitled to maintenance and cure because the lymphoma did not manifest during service.
- Messier’s back injury occurred in October 2005; renal failure led to lymphoma diagnosis in December 2005; he later treated and returned to work in October 2006.
- The central issue is whether maintenance and cure covers an illness that occurs during service but manifests after service ends.
- The appellate court reverses, adopting an occurrence-based rule and remanding to enter partial summary judgment for Messier on maintenance and cure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether manifestation timing limits maintenance and cure. | Messier argues occurrence rule governs; illness occurring during service suffices. | Bouchard argues maintenance and cure requires symptoms manifest during service. | Occurrence rule controls; Messier entitled to maintenance and cure. |
| Is the district court's formulation of a 'manifestation' exception valid? | Wills-based language does not create a separate manifestation requirement. | District court's rule restricts liability improperly. | Manifestation exception rejected; no time-of-symptom requirement separate from occurrence. |
| Appropriate interpretation of key precedents (Taylor, Vaughan, Vella) to the occurrence rule? | Taylor/Vaughan support liberal maintenance and cure to the extent illness occurs during service. | Policy concerns support restrictive interpretation aligning with symptom manifestation. | Court upholds liberal, occurrence-based interpretation consistent with Vaughan and Taylor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 F.2d 527 (U.S. 1962) (liberal maintenance and cure policy; protection of seamen)
- Taylor v. United States, 303 U.S. 525 (U.S. 1938) (three justifications for maintenance and cure; broadly construed)
- Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1975) (maintenance and cure extends beyond pure causation; broad duty)
- Wills v. Amerada Hess Corp., 379 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (manifestation discussion treated as timing of occurrence; not a new rule)
- Sammon v. Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp., 442 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir. 1971) (recurrence/ aggravation of preexisting condition during service)
- Brahms v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1955) (preexisting injury issues; traditional rules of occurrence)
- Miller v. Lykes Bros.-Ripley S.S. Co., 98 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1938) (illicit to show illness began during service)
- Capurro v. The All Am., 106 F. Supp. 693 (E.D.N.Y. 1952) (preexisting injury not arising or aggravated in service)
- Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 318 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1943) (touchstone for manifestation/occurrence language)