Delaware River & Bay Authority v. Kopacz

un- Rigases of the prosecutions successive clauses of and “defraud” the “offense”

der Jeopardy- the Double

§ do not violate

Clause. reasoning majority’s that

I submit consistent with estab- not

and result jurisprudence jeopardy

lished double Congress did not prosecutions

will bar respectful- I therefore prohibit.

intend to

ly dissent & BAY

DELAWARE RIVER

AUTHORITY, Appellant

in No. 08-4029

v. KOPACZ, Appellant D.

Jan 08-4086. No. 08-4029,

Nos. 08-4086. of Appeals, States Court

United

Third Circuit.

Argued May 2009. Sept.

Filed 2009. (2008). conspiracy. Third Circuit Mod.Crim. Jury "defraud” (1) See Instr. 6.18.371A proof: (2008). § requires of an Jury Jury clause of Instr. 6.18.371B The Model persons agreement among more two or define “defraud” as to "cheat the Instructions States; (2) the United that the defen- defraud any agen- government or of its States United (3) party agreement; dant was a to the money property” cies out of or or to “obstruct intentionally joined agree- the defendant one of the United States or interfere with objective to defraud the ment aware of its functions, deceit, government’s lawful States; (4) conspir- United that one of the craft, trickery, Id. or dishonest means.” an overt act in furtherance of ators committed Reeves,

Mary Esq. E. [Argued], Donna Associates, Glenside, Adelsberger PA, & Appellant/Cross Appellee. for Smith, E. Esq. [Argued], Alfred E. Associates, PA, Alfred Wayne, Smith & Appellee/Cross Appellant. RENDELL,

Before: STAPLETON and *, Judges. ALARCÓN Circuit OPINION OF THE COURT RENDELL, Judge. Circuit appeal In this from the District Court’s declaratory judgment award of in favor of defendant Kopacz, against plain- Jan Bay Authority tiff & Delaware River (“DRBA”), upon we are called to decide (1) admiralty two issues law: whether seamen, sleep commuter who eat and on land, are entitled to “maintenance and payment shipowner from a to a cure”— medical, food, lodging seaman to cover expenses during recovery the seaman’s * Alarcon, Circuit, designation. Judge, sitting by Honorable Arthur L. Senior Appeals United States Court of for the Ninth (2) so, Gordon, 11 injury; ago. if wheth ries Harden v. F.Cas.

from illness or (No. (C.C.D.Me.1823) 6,047); relieved of its mainte 482-83 shipowner er a Osceola, 158, 175, injured obligation when the see The 189 U.S. 23 S.Ct. nance and cure (1903). Security disability original pur Its Social L.Ed. 760 seaman receives disability clear long-term payments pose compelling was and ensure benefits and —to Relying injured adequate on seamen funds to cover provided by shipowner. the Compa living expenses during in v. Andover basic their recov opinions our Barnes (3d L.P., Cir.1990), ery. imposition duty, and The of such a it was ny, 900 F.2d 630 felt, Company, shipowners 526 F.2d would benefit both and Shaw v. Ohio River (3d Cir.1975), seamen, im by encouraging shipowners the District Court con to 193 plement safeguards protect to appropriate cluded that commuter seamen are entitled cure, sailors, by encouraging and to un independent to maintenance and of seamen Ac paid voyages: other benefits to the seaman. dertake hazardous awarded Ko- cordingly, the District Court by peculiarity Seamen are the of their $50,790.00, plus pre pacz maintenance of lives liable to sudden sickness from $2,204.29, judgment interest of but denied climate, change exposure perils, of to Kopacz’s consequential damages, claim for They exhausting gener- and labour. are including wages, pain suffering, lost and friendless, ally poor acquire and and Both attorney’s par and fees and costs. carelessness, gross indulgence, habits of timely appealed. ties If improvidence. provision and some be not made them in at sickness appeal on DRBA’s central contention they in expense ship, must often payment is that of maintenance would foreign ports suffer the accumulated ev- recovery,” produce a “double because disease, poverty, ils and and some- already him to Kopacz’s wages enabled perish times from the want of suitable land, procure housing food and on and If expenses nourishment.... these are a Security disability because Social charge upon ship, the interest of the long-term disability payments made to immediately owner will be connected living Kopacz adequately covered his ex- with that of the seamen. The master further, penses. argues, DRBA that the vigi- will watch over their health with prejudgment puni- award of interest was fidelity.... lance and Even the mer- impermissible. tive and thus The sole chant an himself derives ultimate benefit in argument Kopacz’s cross-ap- advanced may from what seem at an first onerous were peal consequential damages charge. encourages It seamen en- Finding no error in improperly denied. gage perilous voyages with more thoughtful the District resolution Court’s promptitude, wages. and at lower It issues, of these we will affirm its order. temptation plunderage

diminishes the sickness; upon approach Background I. urges the seamen to encounter hazards by a payment Maintenance is the service, ship’s they from which shipowner to a sailor for the sailor’s food might disposed otherwise be with- lodging costs incurred while he is draw. ashore as a result of illness or accident. Barnes, Harden, (quoting 900 F.2d at 633 Barnes, F.2d at A common law 631. 483). at F.Cas. maintenance, remedy, derived from medi codes, incorporated eval maritime was into Since Harden was decided almost 200 jurisprudence nearly years ago, “poor American two centu- the lot of the and friend- improved considerably. living interrupted has be or less” seaman terminated Barms, union contracts As we noted prolonged disability.” A. 6-7. benefits, may guarantee sailors host of duty provide The LTD benefits stems including premium pay, overtime and vaca- provision from a in the bargain- collective allowances, disability pensions, tion ing agreement between DRBA and its ma- amenities, including

various televisions and that, rine employees, providing “Employer at dryers. washers and 900 F.2d 637. agrees provide to continue to all perma- emergence contractually- The of these employees nent full-time long-term disabil- benefits, however, has not guaranteed di- ity plans that are ... employees offered to minished our historic solicitude toward generally.” A. 7. agreement makes no seamen, by who continue to be viewed the mention payments, of maintenance and admiralty.” law as “wards of the Id. at DRBA does not maintain an pol- insurance maintenance, Accordingly, duty a 636-37. icy specifically to cover its maintenance employment that is “annexed to the con- obligation to seamen. tract,” that “attaches once the seaman en- a delay payment the event of the of ship,” ters the service of the and that “no benefits, injured LTD an sailor also re- to private agreement competent is abro- ceives the value of his sick and annual gate,” vitality has retained its in the mod- leave. According to DRBA’s risk manag- ern era. Id. at 636. er, Miller, Bonnie the payment of annual many DRBA guarantees of the benefits leave is distinct from maintenance and is above to its seamen. The discussed inter- merely a stop-gap injured to enable an action of these benefits and the mainte- living seaman to cover his expenses during obligation nance lies at the heart of this pendency the of his LTD application. appeal. Kopacz a debilitating inju- suffered back permanent employee A full-time of inry December 2004 subsequent- and was injury job DRBA who an on the suffers is ly duty by deemed unfit to return to full wages days entitled to for the first 90 DRBA. a permanent employ- As full-time Thereafter, disability. employee of the ee, Kopacz wages received his full for 90 equivalent entitled to benefits to 60% of days following disability, the date of his wages, paid through long- his which are a $9,900. (“LTD”) equivalent to approximately Ko- disability policy term funded DRBA, pacz also received the value of his sick and wholly by by and administered (“Hart- leave, equivalent approximately annual to Company Hartford Insurance ford”).1 $4,600. Thereafter, paid Kopacz Hartford personnel provided manual to $2,192 monthly LTD LTD benefits of for 17 Kopacz purpose sets forth the of months, “provide continuing beginning April benefits —to income 2005 and end- employee’s ability should the to earn a DRBA ing September 2006.2 did not employee’s monthly plan pay required 1. Hartford calculates an or administrator DRBA to (1) by: multiplying monthly LTD benefit the wages” seamen "maintenance in the amount (2) percentage; income month, loss benefit per daily payments $450 $15 of or — comparing the result with the maximum ben which were then deducted from the LTD ben- efit; (3) benefits, deducting and other income paid making efit to seamen. Accustomed including Security disability payments, Social inadvertently payments, DRBA these sent Ko- from the lesser amount. pacz indicating with that maintains, that, necessary DRBA less than this sum3 and slightly ment of Further, recovery. DRBA avoid double that LTD Kopacz advised his benefit prejudgment that the award of contends be reduced would thereafter punitive, compensatory, was rather than Af- monthly payment. amount of his SSD thus, impermissible. Kopacz’s cross- and Hartford, to reimburse Kopacz ter refused appeal urges that the District Court im- payment it of LTD benefits. suspended properly consequential denied his claim for thereafter, Shortly Kopacz advised DRBA damages. he, it, required that not was to reimburse sum; this when DRBA de- Hartford for II. Discussion so, this suit followed. clined to do A. Commuter Seamen in Kopacz DRBA sued the United States adopt per se Delaware, of DRBA asks the Court to a District Court for the District declaratory judgment denying that rule maintenance to commuter seeking a DRBA Kopacz DRBA not owe maintenance seamen. observes that the ratio- did 2005, money payments Kopacz’s interest earned on a market and that the offset lion of Kopacz's LTDbenefit. account. All of documented medi- expenses paid, Kopacz have cal been and has made no claim for cure. requested— 3. The amount of reimbursement $16,607.92 lump slightly than the less —was subject juris- received from the Social Securi- sum amount 5.The District Court had matter ty admiralty due to differences in the Administration diction over this action under 28 eligibility policy appellate jurisdic- § dates under the Hartford We U.S.C. 1333. have Security disability program. judgment the Social tion over the final of the District § under 28 U.S.C. We review Court 1291. findings the District Court's of fact under parties stipulated Kopacz’s 4. that month- $2,190.00 clearly erroneous standard. See Sheet Metal ly living expenses were in the time Inc., Group, v. 949 Workers Local 19 2300 beginning January ending period 2005 and 1274, However, (3d Cir.1991). 2007, F.2d our April Kopacz point that attained his application review of the District Court’s of improvement of maximum medical on the date, plenary. monthly the law to these facts is See Tudor latter and that the SSD benefits $1,167.00 Fidelity Group v. & Guar. represented Kopacz’s Dev. United States sole source 2006, Co., 357, (3d Cir.1992). excep- 968 F.2d of income since October with the provide open question for maintenance —to seamen left nale whether a com- compensation equivalent lodg- food and seaman, muter such as Kopacz, is even com- ing inapplicable received at sea—is entitled to maintenance in the place.” first seamen, ashore. sleep muter who eat and Appellant’s Although Br. at 14. Barnes further, wages that the argues, DRBA acknowledged that there was logic” “some already computed are commuter seamen in denying maintenance to shore-based they pay expectation with the will seamen, the court stressed the “life of housing expenses on their own food “experience,” the law” is not “logic.” Id. and, therefore, an award of mainte- land at 643. Barnes then reiterated Congress unjustified nance an produce would wind- Supreme and the “long-established Court’s that, fall. DRBA maintains based on seamen, solicitude” to the “liberal attitude” concerns, “open question” left these we regarding maintenance, the scope of of whether commuter seamen are entitled interpretative requiring canon that am- Barnes, to maintenance in 900 F.2d at 643. biguities regard to maintenance be “re- There, inquiry begins Our with Barnes. solved in favor of the seaman”—all consid- we considered whether a blue water sea- that, concluded, erations supported Barnes man, ashore, who maintained a home was an expansive understanding of the right to entitled to include in his calculation of 637, maintenance. Id. at 643 (citing expenses incurred in connec- Atkinson, 527, v. Vaughan 369 U.S. 532- permanent lodging, tion with his or wheth- (1962)). 82 S.Ct. 8 L.Ed.2d 88 solely permitted er he was to recover the quoted Barnes also at length opin- from an incremental pres- costs attributable his rejecting position ion identical to that land, food, including laundry, ence on urged by DRBA: In gas. approving recovery Barnes’s permanent lodg- costs associated his with deny To [maintenance to a seaman] ing, precedents awarding we cited mainte- because he does not receive lodging and nance to commuter seamen: ship problems meals aboard raises Many given by of the reasons the simple would distort the lines of the awarding courts for maintenance to remedy.... Indeed, maintenance the who, definition, by land-based seamen rationale that maintenance is allowable ordinarily expenses incur their own for only when meals would have been lodging applicable food and are also challenges served aboard the now well inclusion in maintenance of the prorated settled doctrine that the disabled sea- permanent costs of lodging by blue paid man is entitled to be maintenance water seaman: status seamen as beyond voyage, the end of for his were Weiss, admiralty, wards of the F.2d 235 only maintenance to be allowed for those DuPlantis, 313; at at F.Supp. 298 14-15 days during ship which the would have 3; consistency & n. with maritime tradi- meals, him served it would end when the Weiss, DuPlantis, tion, 313; 235 F.2d at voyage was over. 14-15[;] F.Supp. 298 at and the need to provide support ineligi- to those who are (quoting Hudspeth Id. at 642 v. Atlantic & compensation ble for workman’s or oth- Stevedores, Inc., 937, F.Supp. 266 943 Gulf Weiss, support. er means of 235 F.2d at (E.D.La.1967)); Bay see Smith v. Del. 313. Serv., Inc., 836, F.Supp. Launch 972 849 Id. at 642. (D.C.Del.1997); see also Crooks v. United (9th Cir.1972) States, 631, 459 F.2d 634-35

Despite our reliance on these precedents Barnes, (“[T]he insists, remedy DRBA “This Circuit has maintenance should be 628 Admiralty have liberal in by fine distinc- courts been uncluttered

kept simple, duty ‘for the benefit interpreting at- this litigation, with its tions which breed (internal protection of seamen who are its delays expenses.”) tendant omitted). Aguilar noted in v. Stan- Hence, wards.’ We strongly Barnes citation Co., shipowner’s dard that the liabili- Oil seamen are also suggested that commuter ty among cure was for maintenance and entitled to maintenance. pervasive’ ‘the most of all and that it Today, explicit make what was we not to be defeated restrictive was en implicit in Barnes: commuter seamen ‘narrowly distinctions nor confined.’ to maintenance as their joy right the same doubts, are or ambiguities When there Although counterparts. blue water they are resolved favor of the seaman. relating pay to other DRBA’s concerns (internal 531-32, at 997 cita Id. 82 S.Ct. merit, on a have we do not write ments omitted). And, fact, tions DRBA cites (noting at blank slate. Id. 637 Court’s authority withholding main supporting no frequent pronouncements” “clear and tenance from commuter seamen. See id. admiralty). remain wards of the seamen at R.R. (quoting 642 Weiss v. Central Co. Rather, analysis by nearly our is informed (2d Cir.1956) N.J., 309, F.2d 313 235 of (‘We jurisprudence “consistent two centuries of ... authority holding know of no scope ly expanding] right [to of the that a seaman is not entitled to the tradi Vaughan, at Id. 633. maintenance].” privileges merely tional of his status be years over one hundred after the decided short, voyages cause his are because he admiralty introduction of maintenance into ashore, sleeps or for other reasons his lot law, Supreme Court stressed the con pleasant is more than that of most of his tinued status of seamen as “wards” of ad N.Y., brethren.”)); Bailey City v. 55 miralty interpre and the need for “liberal” (S.D.N.Y.1944), aff., 701 F.Supp. 153 obligation. tation of the (2d Cir.1946) (awarding mainte F.2d at 997. U.S. 82 S.Ct. finding nance to land-based seaman after Notwithstanding dissenting authority our col- no for narrow construction of the Crooks, argument that main- at league’s vigorous right); see also 459 F.2d (“Thus obligation obligation tenance and cure does not arise we find the of mainte commuter, when the is a we find nance enforced even where maritime com seaman limiting principle pensation lodg no such inclination to did not include board and —or remedy curtail appli- ing-where expected pay this historic the the seaman was to —in jurisprudence.6 wages. cable As much as we for his meals out of his No matter might expected Supreme employ have the Court in what the terms of his maritime were, modify during period 1962 to the traditional maintenance ment the of his dis obligation changes ability provided to reflect in the modern he was entitled to be with cure.”); lifestyle, City it thing. seaman’s did no such To maintenance as well as (9th Cir.1946) Court, Avalon, contrary, the stressing the the ex- 156 F.2d of (holding to that seaman could recover cost of pansive right, nature of this declined maintenance, exceptions shipowner’s long- fashion to the food as element of even standing duty provide shipowner paid maintenance and where had not for his meals). cure: Nothing Kopacz’s upon age-old purports

6. the that to alter claim rests com- Convention cure, law mon doctrine of maintenance and right Kopacz the here asserts. Shipowners’ Liability not the Convention. (1) short, a for Supreme wages: Court has as substitute the benefits “[t]he depart inclination to from its no shown in a guaranteed bargaining were collective seamen,” for solicitude long-established agreement governing employee compensa- protections the afforded modern despite (2) tion; shipowner the specify did not that Barnes, it 900 F.2d at 637. Until seamen. disability payments were lieu of mainte- so, depart from the we decline does (3) nance; employees were entitled to the “uniformly entitling deep enforced” rule benefits, they even if satisfy did not the seamen to mainte- water and commuter required to conditions recover mainte- Weiss, at nance. 235 F.2d 313. (4) nance; benefits, designed the replace wages, narrowly lost were not tai- Disability Long-Term B. Benefits lodging expenses. lored to cover food and Having Kopacz’s gener established Accordingly, Id. we concluded that the maintenance, we turn to eligibility al disability of payment benefits did not re- LTD DRBA’s alternative contention —that shipowner lieve the of its maintenance ob- payments satisfied its maintenance obli ligation. Company v. Ohio River gation. Shaw payments by other received governs when hand, On the other we concluded in injured satisfy shipowner’s an seamen a that provided Shaw health benefits to the 526 F.2d at 200. obligation. satisfy seaman the shipowner’s duty did There, we considered whether benefits provide payment “cure”—the of a sea- disability policy under a paid to seaman expenses medical during man’s his conva- by shipowner, the and adminis funded policy, lescence. Under the relevant which by Company tered Prudential Insurance fully by shipowner was funded the (“Prudential”), the shipowner relieved Shield, administered Blue Cross-Blue duty. Id. attached its maintenance We injured all of the seaman’s medical ex- to the “character” of primary importance penses the were covered. Because bene- explained the benefit conferred. Id. We narrowly satisfy fits were tailored to part that where a benefit is of the sea duties, “cure” shipowner’s we concluded it wage package, man’s will be deemed payments to the seaman additional shipown separate independent required. were not accordingly, obligation; er’s maintenance will payment of the benefit not relieve Here, Court, applying the District shipowner duty. of maintenance Con its Shaw, discussed in found considerations supporting siderations characterization part par- LTD were benefits rather than mainte “wages” benefit as Kopacz’s wage package. specifi- It cel of (1) the man nance include that: benefit is (1) cally that: DRBA extended LTD noted agreement between wage dated under a employ- all full-time permanent benefits to (2) seaman; the employer the and the ees, including personnel ineligible for indi any provision absence of contractual (2) law; at common the em- maintenance of, is in lieu or in cating that the benefit manual characterized LTD benefits ployee of, employer’s satisfaction the maintenance income,” “continuing payment not as as (3) is obligation; purpose the of the benefit (3) lodging; food the collective bar- (4) replace wages; and the benefit to lost expressly indi- gaining agreement did not recoverable, is even where seaman in of cate that LTD benefits were lieu satisfy require does not the maintenance (4) maintenance; disability benefits Shaw, sup ments. Id. In all four factors awarded, the maintenance disability of benefits were even when ported classification Nothing Conceding that no such written evidence were not met.7 requirements here, that, instead, DRBA payments to exists asserts the insurance “connected” by the evidentiary the maintenance of- its burden is satisfied lodging, or food longstanding the District existence of a “tacit and un- Accordingly, as such. fered DRBA’s DRBA its derstanding” concluded that maintenance between the Court by pay- not satisfied that LTD in obligation was seaman benefits were lieu Appellant’s ment of LTD benefits. Br. at 20. maintenance. testimony by DRBA relies on offered its distinguish the Pru- attempts DRBA to Miller, manager, Bonnie that no em- risk the LTD payments in Shaw from dential DRBA re- ployee previously had sued to DRBA insists that the paid benefits here. disability cover both maintenance and ben- agreement here is si- bargaining collective suit, however, efits. This absence of is contrary, lent on LTD benefits. To readily explained prior plan adminis- “Em- provides, expressly the document —the trator, Pennsylvania Manufacturer’s Asso- provide to all ployer agrees to continue ciation, paid injured “maintenance seamen permanent employees long-term full-time suit, wages” daily. absence $15 disability that are offered to ... plans therefore, is not indicative of a “tacit” un- 7, 553, A. employees generally.” 563-64. LTD derstanding that benefits would be in guarantee The inclusion of the col- this provided any lieu of maintenance. In bargaining agreement sup- lective thus event, speculation why about other DRBA LTD as a ports classification of benefits employees just from refrained suit is maintenance. wages, substitute for not speculation-—and such circumstan- that — Shaw, we scrutinized the record for especially unpersuasive tial evidence is shipowner that the clear written evidence here, all where of the considerations iden- disability satisfy intended benefits its significant support tified as in Shaw classi- stated, duty. We col- “[T]he LTD payments wage fication of the as a bargaining agreement lective this case substitute, maintenance, not and where provision specifying contained no that LTD payments narrowly were not tailored un- payments company from the insurance purpose to the essential of maintenance-to plan der the would be in lieu of benefits during cover food and lodging expenses Undoubtedly maintenance. a vessel owner recovery. the seaman’s against could insure his maintenance obli- gation by program tailored to that LTD pay- benefits Unable demonstrate maintenance, but is indication in the ments were intended as end there no bargaining agreement underlying before us DRBA focuses on the rationale collective right. this was done.” 526 F.2d at 200 for this DRBA contends that (“It added); (emphasis purpose pro- see also id. at 199 historic of maintenance —to injured an an explicit adequate is clear that the absence of vide seaman funds that accu- cover provision specifying living expenses contractual basic met —was benefits, pay wages payment mulated leave time or other is of LTD and that an maintenance, produce unjusti- deemed a substitute for additional award would an be crediting Kopacz. there no basis for such earned fied windfall for We considered— rejected wages against argument the vessel owner’s mainte- similar in —a added). Barms, obligation.”) (emphasis approved nance where we an award of and, therefore, noting payments 7. It is also worth a LTD that neither sea- tation of LTD projected expenditures payments narrowly satisfy man's actual nor his are not tailored to lodging compu- shipowner's obligation. on food and are the the factors in maintenance

631 seaman, independent of contractual unionized who DRBA’s obli- to a maintenance Barnes, 636; gations. to those afforded See 900 F.2d at benefits similar received Vaughan, at see also 369 U.S. Kopacz: (“Maintenance and cure S.Ct. differs that persuasive arguing is Andover rights normally from classified as contrac- who are unionized today those seamen tual.”). improvident. nor are neither friendless that the

The record in this case shows Union, to which International Seafarers Security Disability C. Social Benefits for belongs, has obtained its Barnes Alternatively, DRBA maintains premium pay, overtime and members Kopacz’s receipt that of SSD benefits sat allowances, disability pensions, vacation obligation, isfied its maintenance at least in Furthermore, adjec- the and amenities. position, For its DRBA part. relies on our helpless gener- were tives friendless and statement in Shaw that a “vessel owner foreign ally used to describe sailors obligation provide has no maintenance Now, ill or under union contracts ports. by and cure if it is at no furnished others injured quickly repatriated. are seamen expense to the seaman.” 526 F.2d at 201. of the union- changed circumstances rationale may ized seaman undercut the Shaw, earlier, discussed we held that supporting right the traditional to main- Blue Shield benefits Cross-Blue satisfied cure, at least for unionized tenance shipowner’s obligation. cure rea- We However, Supreme Court seamen. benefits, that which covered soned these depart shown no inclination to from has of the seaman’s medical care and costs long-established its solicitude for sea- hospitalization, equiva- were the “exact[] so, no basis men. Until it does we see Shaw, at 201. lent” of “cure.” 526 F.2d emergence powerful to assume the Accordingly, parties we concluded that the unions, development con- seamen’s pay- the Blue Shield intended Cross-Blue cerning has full knowl- which Court of, rather than in ments be lieu addition justifies edge, ignoring our the Court’s to, injured the “cure” owed to the sailor. frequent pronouncements that clear and However, opposite conclu- we reached admiralty. seamen remain wards of the respect with to the Prudential disabili- sion Barnes, (internal at cita- 900 F.2d 636-37 benefits, ty which the record indicated omitted) added); (emphasis tions see also a substitute for lost were intended as at Vaughan, 369 U.S. 82 S.Ct. payment lodg- for food and wages as—not (rejecting recovery argument and double seaman, ing which were owed to the —and finding injured that income earned an mainte- independent eligibility of his position during at non-maritime seaman basis, that held nance and cure. On we recovery his did not offset the amount payments that did not off- the Prudential due).8 the maintenance owed to the seaman. set Hence, Distinguishing the Blue Shield pay- we conclude that the LTD Cross-Blue we payments, main- benefits from the Prudential ments do not offset the amount of Kopacz, duty explained, that tenance owed to liability by requiring ship- shipowner may “double” avoid

8. DRBA also contends maintenance, pay in addition to specifying disability owners to are intended benefits benefits, disability discourage employ- cover, would part, in whole or in its maintenance disagree, offering We Shaw, ers from such benefits. obligation. 526 F.2d at 200. See did, conclude, the District Court that a as 632 place “subject where he is to the call of true that vessel owner is also

[I]t Barnes, at provide duty,” (citing to maintenance 900 F.2d 633 obligation has no Co., 724, by others at Aguilar if it is furnished v. Standard Oil 318 U.S. and cure 732, 930, (1943)); The es- 1107 expense no seaman.... 63 S.Ct. 87 L.Ed. (2) between the Blue incapable performing sential of “seaman’s is difference and the Prudential work,” 531, Shield Vaughan, Cross-Blue 369 U.S. at 82 S.Ct. (3) satisfy do not payments 997; “actually [which has incurred” food obligation] is that the for- maintenance recovery. lodging expenses during his provides equivalent the exact of Barnes, 642; mer at Vaughan, 900 F.2d see 369 and cure whereas the lat- 531, (noting at 997 that main U.S. 82 S.Ct. ter, this bar- at least under collective lodging limited to food and ex tenance is agreement, constitutes a substi- gaining Carrier, incurred); Gypsum v. penses Inc. wages tute for lost which are owed to a (9th Handelsman, 525, 307 F.2d 535 Cir. ineligible if he is for main- seaman even 1962) (“Maintenance and cure is based tenance and cure. need,” upon and the seaman is under a added). duty expenditures). to minimize Mainte (emphasis disposi- Id. at 201 nance, moreover, therefore, here, immediately is available is whether SSD tive issue upon incapacitation, the seaman’s equivalent” the “exact but ceas provide benefits maintenance, once the seaman attains “maximum or whether the two differ in es cure,” defined as the at scope, purpose, point their and conditions of eli- which he is or gibility. diagnosed Id. either cured his condition is Barnes, permanent as incurable. 900 benefits and maintenance are dis- SSD 633-34; at F.2d see Vella v. Ford Motor in tinguishable important respects. several Co., 1, 5, 1381, 421 U.S. 95 S.Ct. 43 First, policy distinct aims underlie mainte- Crooks, (1975); 682 F.2d at L.Ed.2d 459 payments. main- nance and SSD Whereas made, (“Payments promptly 635 must be provide tenance for the is “intended cost contemporaneous at a time to the illness or lodging comparable quality of food and (internal omitted). injury.”) citation sea,” to that the seaman is entitled to at Barnes, 634-35, 900 F.2d at benefits SSD eligibility The conditions of for SSD ben- replace the income of beneficia- “aim[ ] efits, contrast, are both more—and income ac- ries when is reduced on stringent required than those to ob- less— disability.” count of retirement and Tem- hand, tain maintenance. On the one States, ple Univ. v. United 769 F.2d requirements SSD are more onerous: a (3d Cir.1985); Barnes, 130 see 900 F.2d at claimant must demonstrate that he has (noting maintenance does not en- disability a period suffered for a minimum to a pension lump-sum title seaman or months, Amalgamated of five Gaines v. payment to compensate disability or (3d Fund, Cir.1985); Ins. 753 F.2d Hence, earning capacity). lost SSD bene- disability permanent, that his is having closely analogous fits are more to LTD lasted, last, expected or been for a payments, replace wages, which aim to lost months, id.; period continuous of 12 than to maintenance. 416.909; § impairment and that his C.F.R.

Second, eligibility precludes performance only the conditions of not of his for- payments job any “existing for maintenance and SSD differ mer work but also substantially. significant Maintenance is available numbers the national econo- (1) solely injured a seaman: my,” including when dur “basic work activities.” Sec., ing the of his employment course or at a McCrea v. Comm’r Social 370 F.3d

633 (3d Cir.2004); receipt 42 of Medicare-funded treatment re- see U.S.C. 357, 360 404.1520, 423(d)(2)(A); shipowner duty provide §§ of to lieved its § 20 C.F.R. pro- “cure.” The court relied on our 416.920. in nouncement Shaw that “a vessel owner hand, the conditions of the other On obligation provide has no to are, in benefits certain eligibility for SSD by if it at and cure is furnished others no than those less burdensome respects, other (quot- to the seaman.” Id. at 27 expense to receive maintenance. Claim required 201). Shaw, ing Significantly, 526 F.2d at nonoccupational injuries may re ants with analyze a that Moran did not consideration benefits, 42 U.S.C. cover SSD determining critical in we identified as 423(d)(1)(A),9 expen actual proof § and of appropriate whether “offset” was in food, lodging, or other of funds on diture payments Shaw —whether the received are necessary to obtain bene expenses is not Shaw, equivalent” the “exact of cure. 526 Further, payments need not be fits. SSD F.2d at 201. Because Moran omitted an finan lodging, expended on food analysis that aspect of the offset we prerequisite is not a to obtain cial need Shaw, holding deemed “essential” its Mazza v. Sec. Health assistance. persuasive lacks force. (3d Servs., Cir. Human 903 F.2d 956 1990). Further, Security binding a claimant if Moran on this Social Even were benefits, Court, if holding even his condition core is entitled Moran’s Medi- —that or incurable. diagnosed permanent may satisfy shipowner’s as care benefits 423(a)(1). § 42 obligation comports U.S.C. “cure” with the rea- — There, discussed, soning in Shaw. as we support important These differences benefits, held that Blue Cross-Blue Shield pay- maintenance and SSD classification of which all of the seaman’s medical covered different, “exact[ly] rather than ments as during recovery, provided his expenses Shaw, F.2d at equivalent,” benefits. Likewise, equivalent” of “cure.” “exact Handelsman, 201; F.2d at 537 see Moran, benefits in which the Medicare received sailor (holding payments hospital during seaman’s bills covered the disability do not off- program under state convalescence, equivalent provided his duty); amount owed under maintenance set contrast, benefits, by dif- of “cure.” SSD Barnes, (uphold- 900 F.2d at 637 see also from mainte- scope purpose fer in maintenance, despite right to ing seaman’s Hence, Moran’s conclusions with nance. recovery from his re- possibility of double govern benefits do not respect to Medicare disability pensions, overtime and ceipt of payments made to analysis our of SSD allowances). pay, and vacation premium Kopacz. Nonetheless, analo- attempts DRBA re- Hence, Kopacz’s conclude that we benefits, payments to Medicare

gize SSD did not relieve ceipt of SSD benefits appeals has which at least one court obligation. DRBA its maintenance “cure” may satisfy shipowner’s concluded Towing Transporta- & obligation. Moran Prejudgment D. Interest (2d Lombas, 24, 26-27 Co. v. 58 F.3d tion Next, Cir.1995). Moran, DRBA contends Circuit Second granting Kopacz Court erred Appeals held that a seaman’s District Court of which expected result in death or "disability” can be defines as: 9. The federal statute expected to last for a gainful or can be "inability engage any has lasted substantial period less than 12 medically of not activity by any determin- continuous reason of 423(d)(1)(A). § impairment 42 U.S.C. physical which months.” able or mental on DRBA prejudgment identify excep interest the amount does not an tional justifying withholding him.10 rule in circumstance maintenance owed to “The Rather, prejudgment interest. DRBA’s admiralty prejudgment is that interest appeal sole contention on is that other excep unless there are should be awarded payments Kopacz, including to LTD bene that would make such tional circumstances fits and the value of his sick and annual inequitable.” an Matter Bankers award leave, him, adequately compensated and (3d Co., Cir.1981); 103, Trust 658 F.2d 108 that prejudgment the award of interest Champi see Noritake Co. v. Hellenic M/V However, punitive. was thus we earlier (5th on, 724, 627 F.2d A 728 Cir. Unit rejected argument, this concluding that 1980) (“Discretion deny prejudgment to payments other Kopacz made to did not only is when interest created there are satisfy DRBA’s obligation. maintenance ‘peculiar that it circumstances’ would make Having held that a Kopacz separate has inequitable losing party for the to be maintenance, independent right we interest.”) (in prejudgment forced pay that conclude the District Court did not omitted). ternal citation In Matter of abuse its in compensating discretion Ko- Co., explained, Trust we Bankers “Gener pacz for stemming losses from DRBA’s ally, exceptional only circumstances exist tardy discharge duty. of its See Matter of when the district court concludes that the (“Its Co., Bankers Trust 658 F.2d at 108 (1) party requesting interest has unreason [prejudgment purpose interest’s] is re (2) claim, ably delayed prosecuting its imburse the claimant for the loss of use of made a bad faith damages estimate its its investment or its funds from the time of (3) settlement, precluded that or not sus entered.”); such loss until judgment is any damages.” tained actual 658 F.2d at Skretvedt, (“As 372 at general F.3d 208 interest, An prejudgment 108. award of rule, prejudgment interest is to be award however, compensatory must be rather ed when underlying the amount of the id., punitive, than and is “left to the sound liability reasonably is capable of ascertain court,” discretion of the district which will ment and relief granted would other only be disturbed for abuse of discretion. wise fall making short of the claimant Marine, Co., M Marquette & O Inc. v. 730 whole because he or she has been denied (3d 133, Cir.1984); F.2d Socony 136 see money legally use of the which was Intern., Mobil Oil Co. v. Tex. & Coastal due.” (quoting Anthuis v. Colt Op Indus. (5th 1008, Cir.1977); 559 F.2d 1014 see (3d 999, erating Corp., 971 F.2d 1010 Cir. also Skretvedt v. E.I. DuPont De Nem 1992))); Deisler, see also 54 F.3d at 1087 ours, (3d Cir.2004) (not 372 F.3d (“The Supreme repeatedly Court has held ing district court’s broad discretion to prejudgment merely interest an interest). award prejudgment The Dis plaintiffs element of a complete compensa trict Court concluded that an award of tion.”).

prejudgment “appropriate interest was Consequential Damages E. instance,”

this citing our statement Co., Deisler v. McCormack Aggregates In cross-appeal, Kopacz his argues “merely such relief is an element of a that the denying District Court erred in plaintiffs complete compensation.” consequential his claim for damages. (3d Cir.1995). 1074, 1087 Deisler, F.3d we held that consequential dam- 10. Kopacz sought benefits, pre- payment was Hartford ceased of LTD —and awarded — judgment judgment. interest from October when the date of disregard” legal rights of the of the sea- failure to shipowner’s from a arising ages (“Attor- Deisler, man); cure, 54 F.3d at 1087 including provide interest, ney’s fees costs differ from suffering, are pain and wages and lost damages pain and suf- wages lost F.3d at 1082-84. recoverable. 54 generally fering attorney’s because fees and costs to such dam- an entitlement To establish articulate, plaintiff cannot be recovered unless can however, must plaintiff ages, bad faith or re- minimum, explain first establish defendant’s injury, a and specific at calcitrance.”). Here, DRBA, providing shipown- from the injury that resulted how $40,000 wages, almost in sick and duty. Kopacz Id. at of its maintenance er’s breach leave, long-term disability annual and ben- requirements. fails both Kopacz 1082-83. efits, fact, identify requisite did not exhibit the callous- fails even to Kopacz In Further, Kopacz ness. did not seek main- damages that he consequential kind of year tenance until over one after his date suffering, and or wages, pain seeks—lost injury, Hartford demanded reim- Kopacz specifically when other relief. Nor does emotional, pay- for the amount of SSD physical, or econom- bursement identify an him. DRBA Although of ments made to de- injury resulting non-payment from ic maintenance, decision, contrary, Kopacz pay clined to its To the maintenance. theory, premised legal on a colorable did properly all documented concedes that reimbursed, not reflect a wanton and intentional disre- promptly medical costs were Deisler, Kopacz’s rights. See 54 prove, gard not much less allege, and he does (requiring proof at that denial of including and F.3d 1087 payments, SSD that other “arbitrary or benefits, capricious” to cover maintenance was were insufficient LTD costs). Rather, attorney’s to recover fees and Kopacz mere- expenses. his basic “really needed the mon- ly asserts that he that the Dis- Accordingly, we conclude record, this Br. at 26. On ey.” Appellee’s properly trict exercised its discre- Court did not conclude that the District Court we attorney’s fees and deny Kopacz tion to denying Kopacz’s its discretion abuse costs. and suffer- wages pain claim for lost III. ing. Conclusion reasons, AF- foregoing we will For the type consequential The sole judgment of the District Court. FIRM the expressly seeks— damages Kopacz that properly and costs—was attorney’s fees ALARCÓN, Judge, dissenting: Circuit Attorney’s denied the District Court. majori- from I dissent respectfully solely where and costs are recoverable fees question in this matter. The ty’s opinion pay to maintenance shipowner’s a refusal per- a for our review is whether presented See Atlantic and cure is unreasonable. to and commutes son who resides on shore — Townsend, Co., Inc. v. U.S. Sounding a day laborer aboard job his or her as 2571, 174 —, L.Ed.2d 382 129 S.Ct. lodg- for ferry compensation is entitled (2009) attorney’s that award of fees (noting food, incapac- becomes if he or she ing shipowner’s for “callous” permissible itated, receiving long-term in addition pay refusal to persistent” “willful and by his or her disability paid benefits cure); Vaughan, 369 maintenance and living ex- fully cover his employer that 530-31, (noting that U.S. at S.Ct. penses. ship where attorney’s fees are recoverable Kopacz is enti- concluding that Mr. In pay maintenance owner’s refusal cost payment for the to an additional and intentional tled from a “wanton stemmed meals, I lodging majority, of his citing this Court’s decision Barnes v. Barnes, As noted this Circuit not has (3rd Co., L.P., Andover 900 F.2d 630 Cir. yet determined whether the doctrine of 1990), “Although states as follows: Barnes applicable to seamen who are acknowledged logic’ that there was ‘some incapacitated ships while on sail in denying maintenance to shore-based ports distant should be extended to com- seamen, the court stressed the ‘life of muter seamen. ” ‘experience,’ ‘logic.’ the law’ is not Ma jority Op. subsequent passage, at 627. In his brilliant Law Harvard School lec- majority strongly sug states: “Barnes tures, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ex- gested that commuter seamen are also en plained the evolution of Common Law Majority titled to Op. maintenance.” at principles as follows: I disagree reading 628. with this of object The of present this book is to a In expressly Barnes. fact this Court de general view of the Common Law. To in question clined to reach this Barnes. task, accomplish the other tools are Instead, this Court stated: logic. something needed It is besides to Whatever the merits of the double consistency show that the system of a recovery objection paid for maintenance result, requires a particular but it not seamen, to land-based that argument is all. The of law life the has not been inapplicable to Barnes. Barnes was not logic: experience. it has been The felt sug- shorebound and Andover does not time, necessities of the prevalent the gest wages that his were in con- fixed theories, moral political and intuitions of templation providing his his own of public unconscious, policy, or avowed Thus, lodging. and the fact that food even prejudices the which judges share wages Barnes chose to use his to main- fellow-men, with their good have had a tain an on-shore residence rather than deal more to syllogism do than the on entertainment or on some frivolity determining by the rules which men should not be used to reduce his recov- governed. should be The law embodies ery, particularly since ques- there is no story the of a development nation’s any recovery tion here double aas of through many centuries, and it cannot result wages.” land-based of be dealt with as if it only contained the added). (emphasis Id. at 643 axioms and corollaries of a of book Moreover, fact that “DRBA the cites no mathematics. In to order know what it authority supporting withholding is, been, mainte- we must know what it has and seamen,” nance Majority from commuter what it tends to become. al- We must Op. at not logically support does ternately history consult existing and conclusion that a commuter seaman is legislation. theories of But the most therefore entitled to maintenance without difficult labor will be to understand the some equities favor showing this combination of the prod- two into new result. I join majority’s cannot num- at every stage. ucts The substance of ber because I am persuaded that extend- any given the law at pretty nearly time ing the maritime doctrine of maintenance corresponds, goes, so far it as with what to an employee who day convenient; commutes each is then understood to be but from his job shore-based home to his machinery, as its form and degree and the day ferry laborer on a contrary boat is to which it is able to work out desired logic both experience. results, and depend very upon much its past. owner, lead him succor Jr., of his will Holmes, The Common Oliver Wendell ed., distress, (John cheering and shed a kind- 3-4, Library Belk their Harvard Law 2009) suffering Press anxious hours of Univ. ness over the of Harvard nap Press (1881). despondency. by suffered sea- experience woeful The Story’s opinion in Har- Id. at 483. Justice lengthy voyages incapacitated on

men capacity den was written his as adoption to the of that led ports distant for the District of Maine. Circuit Justice vividly was de- doctrine the maintenance Supreme the United States in Harden Story by Justice scribed Story’s referred to Justice decision Court (C.C.D.Me.1823) Gordon, 11 F. Cas. v. country first case in this in Harden as the (No. 6,047). adopted the doctrine maintenance their peculiarity of are Seamen Osceola, 158, 172, cure. The 189 U.S. sickness from liable to sudden lives (1903). 483, 47 L.Ed. 760 23 S.Ct. climate, perils, exposure change Story’s opinion summarized Justice Court gener- are exhausting They labor. follows: as friendless, acquire poor and ally carelessness, gross indulgence, habits Story held that a claim for Justice provision If be some improvidence. and cure in case of sickness expenses of at the for them in sickness not made law a contemplation in of constituted in ship, they must often expense of the wages, for over part of the contract accumulated ev- ports suffer the foreign jurisdic- admiralty rightful had a which disease, and some- poverty, and ils of personam was in tion. The action want of suitable perish from the times wages and owner for against the master earnings common nourishment. Their by the expenses occasioned and other wholly inadequate are many in instances foreign port a plaintiff sickness of the in sickness; expenses for the provide to voyage, which were in the course the great the applied, if to be so and liable allowed. might behavior be ordi- good motives for added). The Court held (emphasis Id. fu- by their narily away pledging taken that, English upon reviewing The Osceola wages for the re- past ture as well as authorities, law American the and many voyages, In of the debt. demption Indies, the West particularly those to the upon as settled may be considered to are often insufficient wages the whole ... the following proposition[ “[t]hat ]: by occasioned the expenses meet the liable, in case owners are vessel and her those insalubrious diseases of perilous in the sick or is wounded a seamen falls hand, if other these climates. On the the extent of his ship, of his to service the charge upon ship, a the expenses are cure, wages, and to his maintenance and will be immediate- interest of the owner voyage the is contin- long at least as as that of the seamen. ly connected with ued. their health master will watch over The also 175, 483. The Court at 23 S.Ct. Id. fidelity. He will take vigilance with is not allowed the seaman “[t]hat held methods, prevent as well the best negligence the indemnity an for recover diseases, recovery speedy as to ensure crew, master, of the any member or tempted He will never be from them. cure, maintenance and fate; is entitled to but forlorn the sick to their abandon by neg- received injuries were whether the combining with the interest duty, but his 638

ligence times, or accident.” Id.11 From the earliest maritime na- have recognized unique tions haz- each of the cases which the Su- ards, emphasized by unusual tenure and preme applied Story’s has Justice Court control, attend the work of seamen. analysis experiences of of the seamen physical risks created natural support of the application doctrine of elements, and the limitations of human cure, facts demon- sea, adaptability to work at enlarge the incapacitated strate that the seaman was strictly occupational narrower and more while he as a member of a served vessel sailing hazards of operating vessels. traveling ports. to distant In Calmar S.S. And the restrictions which accompany 525, 651, Corp. Taylor, v. 303 U.S. 58 S.Ct. living ship long periods aboard a at a (1938), 82 L.Ed. 993 Court defined the time combine with the constant shuttling terms “maintenance” and “cure” as fol- ports between unfamiliar to deprive the lows: compa- “The maintenance exacted is seaman of the opportuni- comforts and rable to that to which the seaman is enti- leisure, ties for living essential for care, tled to while at sea and ‘cure’ is working, that accompany most land oc- including nursing attention, and medical Furthermore, cupations. the seaman’s during period duty such as continues.” subjection authority unusual adds the (internal 528, Id. at S.Ct. citations weight of what involuntary would be ser- omitted). vitude for extraordinary others to these In Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. Newof hazards and ship limitations of life. Jersey, 318 U.S. 63 S.Ct. Accordingly, object with the combined (1943), injured L.Ed. 1107 seaman was of encouraging marine commerce and on a steamship engaged messman assuring seamen, the well-being of mari- coastwise trade between New Orleans and uniformly time nations imposed have East ports. Coast and Gulf Coast While responsibilities broad for their health the vessel port was moored in a in Phila- safety and upon the owners of In ships. delphia, injured the seaman was as he left country this these notions were reflected ship 725, the on shore leave. Id. at 63 early, and have expanded, since been in S.Ct. 930. In a companion consolidated legislation designed to secure the com- case, a injured seaman on shore leave was fort and health of ship, seamen aboard by as he walked back to ship his the driver hospitalization at home and care abroad. owned, of a operated motor vehicle not or The statutes are uniform in evincing sol- by ship controlled the owner. Id. at 725- icitude that the seamen shall have at 26, 63 930. S.Ct. hand the barest essentials for existence. Citing Story’s Justice decision in They Har- do this in ways. by two One is den, Aguilar the Court in explained its recognizing shipowner’s the duty sup- to holding that the them, seamen were entitled to ply and by the other providing for cure and maintenance as follows: care at public expense. The former do 11, 1920, Congress to, In enacted the ing recovery Jones Act. personal injury for a or provides Its current text of, as follows: railway employee death a apply to an injured A employ- seaman in the course of action under this section. or, ment injury, if the Thus, seaman dies from the § 46 U.S.C. 30104. under the Jones personal representative the of the Act, seaman wages a seaman can now recover for lost law, may bring elect to a civil action at with compensation expenses and for medical in a right by jury, against the of trial the em- against employer. civil action his or her ployer. regulat- Laws the of United States

639 to work who commute persons cure to long That existed duty. create the not They do not sail to distant adopted. vessels that were aboard the statutes before Instead, obli- preexisting the has continued to recognize the Court merely ports. sanctions, legal put specific of Story’s explanation gation Justice adhere to criminal, it. behind generally duty in Harden. underlying that policy the stat- (footnotes example, Vaughan, Court For omit- 727-29, 930 63 at S.Ct. Id. ted). ed: 527, Atkinson, U.S. 369 v. Vaughan rule, underlying the to The reasons (1962), the 997, 88 L.Ed.2d 8 82 S.Ct. made in must be which defin- reference respon- on the a seaman as served

plaintiff it, in the clas- enumerated ing are those 26, to 1956 November vessel from dent’s Story in by Mr. passage Justice sic discharged on the 2, 1957. He was March Gordon, No. Fed. Cas. Harden v. 604-7 2, On March voyage. aof termination seamen, who, (C. C): protection sea- 1957, furnished the ship’s master im- class, friendless and poor, are as a a to enter United a man with certificate of illness from hazards provident, Hospital. He was Health Services States foreign ports; ill in while abandonment hospital. at the days five later examined and owners to masters the inducement 18, on March patient admitted He was as safety health of sea- protect the to was He tuberculosis. and treated for 1957 service; maintenance men while on June outpatient status discharged to an the commercial marine for of a merchant treat- receive 6, to 1957. He continued na- of the and maritime defense service years. Id. over two in that status for ment accept employ- inducing men by tion 528, 82 S.Ct. 997. at perilous service. an arduous ment in provide declined ship The owner (quoting at 82 S.Ct. “nev- 369 U.S. because he with seaman at U.S. Corp. Taylor, v. during his S.S. any illness Calmar complained er added). 651) (emphasis Id. The seaman months’ service.” S.Ct. four right his enforce lawyer hired matter dem- facts this undisputed award requested an He also maintenance. employed Kopacz that Mr. was onstrate de- The District Court attorney’s fees. It its ferries. a deckhand on the DRBA as of his payment the request for nied his his from job. He commuted day his was af- Appeals of Court attorney’s fees. The lodging or He did not receive home. attorney’s fees and of the denial firmed an reported He employer. from his meals a taxi he earned as held that the amount 24, 2004. injury on December on-the-job the from amount had to be deducted driver duty on for to be unfit He was found and maintenance to for entitled he was 5, 2005. January on DRBA’s ferries 529, 997. 82 S.Ct. Id. at cure. a through in Calmar S.S. on its decision Relying received benefits Kopacz Mr. Story’s opin- Taylor, by Justice his Corp. paid v. for disability policy long-term Harden, in held Supreme Court the payment ion for the provided which employer imagine a that is difficult Vaughan ninety days “[i]t of first for the wages his full the suffered for damages case of clearer there- wages of his disability, and 60% his than this one.” pay maintenance failure pro- to be that he would continue so after 997. at 82 S.Ct. Id. ability to his in the income event vided an or terminat- interrupted living a was earn not has extended Supreme Court disability. by prolonged ed the maritime doctrine Mr. Kopacz received pay full experiences his for encountered a commuter ninety days. Thereafter he paid was seamen define that his or her entitlement $2,192 per month. The parties stipulated to maintenance. monthly his living expenses totaled There is no evidence in the record that $2,190per month. Mr. Kopacz friendless, a poor, and im- Mr. Kopacz applied for Security Social provident person. subjected He was not (“SSA”) disability

Administration pay- perilous to the hazards and sudden illness- ments. SSA approved application his in es that can be incurred from the change of October of 2006. SSA sent him a check in climate while sailing on high seas. the He $17,142 the amount of represented which subject was not to being abandoned in a his benefits July retroactive to 2005. port distant wages, or the means —without Thereafter, Kopacz Mr. received SSA of for providing his own maintenance. $1,167 benefits of monthly. The DRBA’s Therefore, clearly he did not qualify for long-term disability policy benefits provid- maintenance. ed that SSA benefits are an off-set to In extending the doctrine of mainte- provided by those policy. Hartford, the nance and day cure to laborers who work long-term the disability insurer, requested on ferries and who do not face the hazards that Mr. Kopacz repay overpayment described by Justice Story, the District $16,607.92 which arose when Mr. Kopacz ignored Court Justice Holmes’s admoni- was awarded payments SSA retroactively. tion that we must look to real-life experi- Mr. Kopacz refused. He insisted that ence in creating new rules of law. The repay DRBA $16,607.92 the Hartford fact that Supreme Court catego- has $1,100 per month that Hartford was rized seamen as “wards” of admiralty does deducting. justify not an extension of the maintenance DRBA this filed action in the District doctrine to seamen who commute to work Court seeking declaration it had each day, addition, receive benefits fully met its obligations to Kopacz. Mr. through disability insurance and social se- The District Court concluded that DRBA curity that were unavailable Justice Sto- required was to make payments to Mr. ry’s hapless seamen depended who on Kopacz for his maintenance to cover the their masters provide their lodging, cost food, of his lodging and notwithstand- food, and medical view, care. my an ing the fact that DRBA provided had award of maintenance under these circum- monthly living expenses through benefits stances clearly results impermissible an long-term disability policy. double recovery for Mr. Kopacz. The foregoing facts do not meet requirements application of the II doctrine of maintenance set forth in Har- den adopted by and Supreme Perhaps the stronger in an even argument Court that The Osceola. As the an Court award instructed in of maintenance and cure does Vaughan, the apply “reasons not underlying the to a rule commuter seaman who does to which reference must be in not sail made defin- to distant ports, and does not ing” the doctrine of maintenance are receive lodging those and food aboard his em- enumerated by Justice ployer’s boats, in Story Harden. ferry is that such a rule is Vaughan, 531, 369 at U.S. contrary (Sick 82 S.Ct. 997. to Shipowners’ the Liability In awarding matter, Seamen) maintenance in this Injured and Convention. See the District Court failed to set forth the Convention Between the United States of

641 the citizens America and of United States the Inter- of Members Other America understandings subject to ... thereof Respecting Organization Labor national recited_” Sickness, Id. at Final Proclama- above of Liability in Case Shipowners’ 24, Seamen, October tion. Death of or Injury, 169, at- 1693, 40 U.N.T.S. 1936, Stat. 54 maintenance of Extending the doctrine Liability Shipowners’ The hereto.

tached seamen, adopted as to and cure commuter President Convention, by the proclaimed ratifying the States Con- by the United 1939, in section 29, provides September on its limita- vention, conflict with is in direct owner shall ship “The 4 that: 1 Article of voyages on on incapacitated tion to seamen medical of defray expense the to liable be high the seas. sick or until the care and the cured, until or has been injured person Conclusion of has been declared incapacity or sickness in The decision Supreme The Court’s 1693, 54 Stat. character.” permanent the doc- application the of limited Osceola 4, § 1. art. cure to seamen of trine maintenance 4, the of Article Convention section voyages to distant during incapacitated that: provides also following the the record shows ports where territory in in the is force if there facts: a scheme registered the vessel which voy- of the length of the One. Because sick- compulsory to seamen of applying the sea- provided has age, shipowner the in- accident insurance, compulsory ness lodging with food. man for compensation workmen’s or surance paying ceased shipowner has Two. The may provide— accidents, laws national un- because his wages to seaman the to be (a) shipowner shall cease duty. for fitness injured sick or of a respect liable to failed com- shipowner has Three. per- at which the time from person lodg- or for his food the seaman pensate benefits to medical entitled son becomes is unable work he ing, for which compensation or the insurance under injury. his because of scheme. pay failed to has shipowner Four. The 4, States § The United at art. 3. Id. hospi- care and medical for the seaman’s subject to the Convention adopted America talization. States that “the United understanding has been abandoned The seaman Five. words and construes understands pay funds without port foreign in a in this appearing navigation’ ‘maritime transpor- treatment his medical high navigation on to mean Convention home. tation to his 1704, ratification U.S. only.” Id. at seas understandings. subject to subjected not has been Kopacz Mr. boat ferry His deprivations. any of these its gave States of the United The Senate high on the ports to distant not sail did ratification to the on June consent his work he commuted seas. Because by the President of the Convention home, did his he day from assignment D. each Franklin States. President United shipowner’s aboard sleep or not eat September on declared Roosevelt in a abandoned was not He ferryboats. to be convention said “caused the that he his for compensation without port distant same and the end public to made care. and medical expenses living may be thereof and clause every article disability insurance shipowner paid by the good faith and fulfilled observed that was sufficient to cover monthly- his It also troubling that an award of living expenses. maintenance to a commuter seaman is con- trary to a Convention that the United I am Story sure Justice would be aston- States has entered into with other mari- seaman, ished to that a learn commuter time In relying nations. on the absence of whose monthly living expenses pro- were authority supporting withholding by vided for shipowner, his also be must maintenance from commuter seamen to furnished additional pay funds to for lodg- reach its conclusion that such seamen are ing and food that he was not entitled to maintenance, therefore entitled to Majori- receive eight-hour shift, his during solely ty Op. at the majority has failed to set because he is admiralty. a ward of forth the “reasons underlying the rule IWhile am not sure Justice Holmes had which reference must be made in defining” the doctrine of maintenance cure in the doctrine of maintenance as enumerated mind when he instructed us experi- by Story in Justice Vaughan, Harden. plays ence a dominant role in the evolution 369 U.S. at 82 S.Ct. 997. Until the Law, of the Common I doubt seriously Supreme Court addresses ques- this novel that he have would concluded that tion, I believe the lower federal courts relatively experience bland of a commuter faithfully must comply with the limited seaman, as compared to one whose work reach of the maintenance rule announced takes him or her to parts distant on the Supreme Court in The Osceola as high seas, justify would an extension the supreme law of the land. doctrine of maintenance to seamen who do not encounter the conditions Accordingly, described in I would reverse the double the Supreme Court’s decision in The recovery Os- awarded to Kopacz Mr. in the ceola. judgment. District Court’s checks notes payments wages” constituted "maintenance mistakenly 2. DRBA also transmitted three period April July for the between 2005 and checks, $1,770.00, totaling Kopacz. Miller explained pri- that this was done because the trial, one-day cure. After a bench payments separate make Kopacz request them. District Court concluded that was Kopacz nor did Kopacz, to maintenance in the amount of entitled injured required Because Hartford also $50,790.00, plus prejudgment interest of Security for disabil- apply seamen to Social However, $2,204.29. the District Court (“SSD”) benefits, which, if approved, ity consequential claim Kopacz’s denied for LTD monthly from deducted would be damages, including wages, pain lost benefits, application an Kopacz submitted suffering, attorney’s costs.4 fees and in October 2006. After for SSD benefits parties timely appealed.5 Both Kopacz’s application, Social approval seamen, DRBA transmitted contends commuter Security Administration $17,142.00, ashore, sleep ineligible who eat and are him in the amount of check to It in the alter- argues, total retroactive maintenance. also his benefits representing native, have provided thereafter the District Court should July $1,167.00. Kopacz, payments deducted other made to monthly payments SSD, including LTD and from the amount discovering payment Upon Kopacz of maintenance owed to result —a $17,142.00,Hartford demanded reimburse-

Case Details

Case Name: Delaware River & Bay Authority v. Kopacz

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Sep 25, 2009

Citation: 584 F.3d 622

Docket Number: 08-4029, 08-4086

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.