Willie Meche v. Key Energy Services, L.L.C.
777 F.3d 237
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Willie Meche, captain of the crew boat M/V MISS CATHERINE, alleged a June 20, 2008 back injury while aboard; contemporaneous reports said he strained his back lifting a hatch cover.
- Meche sued his employer Key Marine Services (Key) and supervisor Alex Doucet under the Jones Act and general maritime law, seeking maintenance and cure plus damages.
- The district court found Meche’s trial testimony (that a five-foot wave threw him over a rail) not credible, concluded he strained his back lifting the hatch, rejected negligence and unseaworthiness claims, but found he aggravated a preexisting spinal condition and awarded maintenance and cure, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.
- Defendants argued Meche forfeited maintenance and cure by concealing prior spinal injuries on a pre-employment medical questionnaire given to his prior employer, Moncla; Key had acquired Moncla’s marine division and retained its employees without new medical exams.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed rejection of negligence and unseaworthiness claims, vacated all awards against Doucet (not an employer), and held Key entitled to McCorpen-based forfeiture because Meche intentionally concealed material medical information to Moncla, and Key properly relied on Moncla’s pre-employment exam after purchasing Moncla’s division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility / factual cause of injury | Meche: severe weather threw him over rail causing injury | Defendants: contemporaneous statements show he strained his back lifting a hatch; weather was calm | Court: credited contemporaneous reports and meteorological evidence; Meche strained his back lifting the hatch (credibility resolved against Meche) |
| Unseaworthiness / negligence | Meche: poor lighting, oil leaks, and being ordered to lift hatch made vessel unseaworthy/negligent | Defendants: lifting hatch was routine one-person task; weather and conditions benign; oil leak not causally linked | Held: no unseaworthiness or negligence (district court findings affirmed) |
| Maintenance & cure liability as to Doucet | Meche: sought maintenance & cure from supervisor Doucet | Doucet: maintenance & cure applies only to employer (or vessel in rem) | Held: vacated award against Doucet — not liable for maintenance & cure (employer-only duty) |
| Applicability of McCorpen concealment defense to Key after asset acquisition | Meche: Key didn’t require its own pre-employment exam so only subjective nondisclosure standard applies; he didn’t think condition was material | Key: acquired Moncla (which required/obtained medical exam) and relied on Moncla’s records; thus objective McCorpen concealment applies and bars recovery | Held: Key was entitled to McCorpen defense — Meche intentionally concealed material medical facts to Moncla, Key relied on that exam after acquisition, causation established; maintenance & cure and related awards vacated against Key |
Key Cases Cited
- McCorpen v. Central Gulf S.S. Corp., 396 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1968) (seaman’s intentional concealment on pre-employment exam can bar maintenance and cure)
- Brown v. Parker Drilling Offshore Corp., 410 F.3d 166 (5th Cir. 2005) (describes distinction between subjective nondisclosure and objective concealment standards and McCorpen elements)
- Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1982) (remand required when findings are infirm due to erroneous view of law)
- Boudreaux v. Transocean Deepwater, Inc., 721 F.3d 723 (5th Cir. 2013) (employer entitled to investigate maintenance and cure claims without incurring punitive damages exposure)
- Jauch v. Nautical Servs., Inc., 470 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2006) (maintenance and cure recoverable for preexisting conditions unless seaman knowingly concealed them)