Messier, a seaman, contracted lymphoma and sued his former employer, seeking maintenance and cure. The district court ruled that his lymphoma did not manifest itself during his service ate sea and so, his employer did not owe him maintenance and cure. The appeal is Messier v. Bouchard Transportation, 2012 WL 2948540.
Messier worked as a career tugboat seaman since March 2004. In October 2005, Messier fell climbing down a ladder and suffered back pain. Over the years, Messier was treated and tested and finally, in December 2005, two months after his service ended, Messier was diagnosed with B-cell lymphoma. In November 2008, he filed a claim under the Jones Act seeking maintenance and cure. The district court dismissed his case and said his illness did not manifest itself, that is, present any symptoms, while he was in service of the ship. This appeal followed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, noted that a claim for maintenance and cure concerns the vessel owner's obligation to provide food, lodging, and medical services to a seaman injured while serving the ship. The doctrine entitles an injured seaman to three distinct remedies—maintenance, cure, and wages. Maintenance compensates the injured seaman for food and lodging expenses during his medical treatment. Cure refers to the reasonable medical expenses incurred in the treatment of the seaman's condition. A seaman is entitled to maintenance and cure only until he reaches maximum medical recovery.
The court further noted that maintenance and cure is an ancient duty and it arises from the contract of employment, something similar to nonstatutory workers compensation. The obligation to pay maintenance and cure can arise out of a medical condition such as a heart problem, a prior illness that recurs during the seaman's employment, or an injury suffered on shore. Moreover, a seaman may be entitled to maintenance and cure for a preexisting medical condition that recurs or becomes aggravated during his service.
With this in mind, the court said that the major question in this case is: whether a seaman may obtain maintenance and cure for an injury that occurs during his service of the ship, but does not present symptoms until his service is over. The district court had ruled that the injury must not only occur, but also manifest during a seaman's service. The circuit court said that neither case law nor policy considerations support this formulation.
The court said that the manifestation of symptoms has never been the touchstone for a seaman's entitlement to maintenance and cure. The actual rule is that maintenance and cure covers any injury or illness that occurs while in the service of the ship; all that matters is when the injury occurred, not when it started to present symptoms. Since the phrase “in the service of the ship” means the seaman is generally answerable to its call to duty rather than actually in performance of routine tasks or specific orders, the facts showed that Messier was in the service of the ship when he developed lymphoma. Therefore, Messier was entitled to maintenance and cure. The ruling of the district court was reversed.
Editor's Note: This case from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is presented as a brief discussion of one of the aspects of maritime law. Maintenance and cure are aimed at protection of seamen who are injured while in the service of the ship. In this instance, the real question was whether Messier was entitled to maintenance and cure since his symptoms manifested themselves only after his service to the ship was finished. The court ruled that the manifestation of symptoms has never been a touchstone for a seaman's entitlement to maintenance and cure; the main guidepost is that a seaman is entitled to maintenance and cure “while he is in the service of the ship”, and this means the seaman is generally answerable to its call to duty rather than actually in performance of routine tasks or specific orders.