Wallace Boudreaux v. Transocean Deepwater, Inc.
721 F.3d 723
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Boudreaux failed to disclose preexisting back problems on a pre-employment medical questionnaire for Transocean in 2005.
- After injury on the job, Transocean paid maintenance and cure to Boudreaux for nearly five years.
- In 2008 Boudreaux sued for further maintenance and cure, Jones Act negligence, and unseaworthiness; Transocean moved for summary judgment on the McCorpen defense.
- District court granted summary judgment to Transocean, allowing a counterclaim for restitution of past maintenance and cure payments.
- Parties bracketed a settlement resolving Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims, leaving only the viability of the restitution counterclaim to be decided.
- The court concluded that restitution via a McCorpen defense is not automatically granted as an independent right; instead, restitution may only be offset against damages awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| McCorpen defense and restitution | Boudreaux argues no automatic restitution; still subject to offset rules. | Transocean argues McCorpen defense automatically yields restitution for past benefits. | No automatic restitution; offset against damages only. |
| Scope of restitution remedy | Restitution should be recoverable as an independent action. | Restitution should be a standalone right outside damages offset. | Restitution not independent; recoverable only as damages offset. |
| Policy implications for seamen | Recognizing restitution protects seamen and aligns with maritime policy. | Recognizing broad restitution undermines seamen’s interests and encourages fraud. | Maintain traditional balance; avoid creating new restitution right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525 (1938) (maintenance and cure rooted in employment contract and maritime duty)
- Still v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 368 U.S. 35 (1961) (fraud in procuring employment does not void employment relation; Still governs damages)
- McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp., 396 F.2d 549 (5th Cir. 1968) (fraudulent concealment can defeat maintenance and cure liability)
- Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372 (1918) (maintenance and cure as part of the employment relationship)
- Williams v. Reading & Bates Drilling Co., 750 F.2d 487 (5th Cir. 1985) (fringe benefits included in Jones Act damages; duplicative with maintenance and cure)
- Blister v. A.W.I., Inc., 946 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1991) (maintenance payments duplicate Jones Act damages for past medical expenses)