On June 20, 2008, Jones Act plaintiff Willie Meche claims he hurt his back while he was lifting a hatch cover on a vessel owned and operated by Key Energy Services.  He filed suit in the Western District of Louisiana in front of Judge Haik.  The case went to trial in 2013 and is currently pending on appeal.

Mr. Meche had a number of different versions of his accident.  In his reasons for judgment, Judge Haik in the Western District concluded “Meche’s conflicting accounts of the unwitnessed accident and the inconsistencies in his various statements and testimony raise serious doubts about whether or not an accident occurred and the negligence of Key Energy.  Judge Haik also found “the only consistencies” were his account of raising a hatch cover and the onset of back pain.

Finding there was no competent evidence of negligence or unseaworthiness, Judge Haik found for Key Energy on both issues.

The maintenance and cure issues are more complicated.

The day after his accident, Mr. Meche saw Dr. Gregory Gidman, who returned him to work as able.  Mr. Meche never returned to work, citing pain. Despite problems as to Mr. Meche’s account of his accident, Judge Haik credited his account that his employer all but filled out his pre-employment questionnaire for him, even though Mr. Meche signed the form himself.

In litigation, Meche did not demand maintenance and cure until 2012.  Before then, he did not provide medicals to his employer. He also had a lengthy history of back and neck issues.

At trial, Meche introduced evidence of his proposed cervical and lumbar surgeries.  It also introduced evidence for McCorpen, that Mr. Meche had willfully failed to disclose his prior lumbar and cervical issues and failing that, he had not disclosed medical concerns he would consider important.  Judge Haik discredited the McCorpen defense entirely.

Surprisingly, Judge Haik found the lumbar surgery was palliative, not curative, because it would alleviate symptoms but not necessarily improve results.  Still, he awarded $44,688 in maintenance (at a rate of just over $25 per day); $41,568 in cure for his lumbar treatment; and $43,118 in punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

This case is one of the few to find punitive damages for arbitrary and capricious denial of maintenance and cure.  Generally, if there is a viable defense to M&C, like McCorpen or causation, punitive damages will not be found.  However, Judge Haik includes emphatic language to the effect that M&C is an all-but-absolute duty.

The case is on appeal.