Fifth Circuit Accepts McCorpen Defense and Reverses District Court Award of Punitive Damages

Case:Meche v. Doucet
5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Louisiana)
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 946

Plaintiff, Willie Meche, was the captain of the crew boat MISS CATHERINE, a vessel which served a drilling rig off the coast of Louisiana. On June 20, 2008, the vessel was tied to the rig, which was under tow to a new location near Cote Blanche, Louisiana. Meche claimed he injured his back while lifting a hatch cover to check the oil on the vessel. Meche further alleged that stormy conditions caused a five foot wave to hit the vessel, throwing him over a railing.

Meche filed suit against Key Marine Services, LLC, Meche's employer and owner of the vessel, as well as Alex Doucet, Meche’s supervisor and the toolpusher on the rig under tow. Meche asserted claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law, including a claim for maintenance and cure, against both Defendants. Key and Doucet denied that the incident ever occurred and argued that Meche forfeited his right to maintenance and cure by lying about his preexisting spinal injuries on his pre-employment application and medical questionnaire.

Federal district Judge Richard Haik held a bench trial and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court first found Meche’s testimony that he was thrown over the railing by a five foot wave was incredible because it conflicted with his contemporaneous descriptions of the incident, all of which stated he strained his back lifting a hatch cover to check the vessel’s oil. The court also found that the weather and seas were calm at the time of Meche's injury, which further undermined Meche's testimony. Consistent with its finding that Meche merely strained his back while lifting the hatch cover, the district court concluded Defendants were not negligent and the vessel was not unseaworthy.

However, the court found Meche had aggravated a preexisting spinal injury when he lifted the hatch cover on the vessel. The court thus ruled Meche could recover maintenance and cure from both Key and Doucet. The court rejected Defendants’ argument that Meche forfeited his right to maintenance and cure by lying about his preexisting medical conditions on his pre-employment questionnaire. The court found that Key did not require a pre-employment medical examination or interview. The court further reasoned Meche did not consider his pre-existing condition to be a matter of importance, such that he did not intentionally conceal his medical history. Meche was therefore entitled to maintenance and cure, which Key and Doucet had wrongfully refused to pay, in bad faith. The court awarded Meche punitive damages and attorneys’ fees against both Defendants.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court’s findings regarding Meche’s credibility and affirmed the district court’s findings in favor of the defendants on unseaworthiness and Jones Act negligence.

The Fifth Circuit then properly reversed the maintenance and cure award against Meche’s supervisor, Defendant Doucet, noting “it is hornbook law that the maintenance and cure duty extends only to the seaman's employer, or, in some cases, to the vessel in rem. Because Doucet was not Meche's employer, he cannot be liable for maintenance and cure.”

Regarding liability for failure to pay maintenance and cure, the Fifth Circuit acknowledged, under McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp., a seaman who knowingly fails to disclose a pre-existing physical disability during his pre-employment physical examination may not recover maintenance and cure. In order to establish a McCorpen defense, an employer must show that (1) the claimant intentionally misrepresented or concealed medical facts; (2) the non-disclosed facts were material to the employer's decision to hire the claimant; and (3) a connection exists between the withheld information and the injury complained of in the lawsuit. In cases involving a pre-existing illness or other disability, courts have made a distinction between nondisclosure and concealment. Where the shipowner does not require a pre-employment medical examination or interview, the rule is that a seaman must disclose a past illness or injury only when, in his own opinion, the shipowner would consider it a matter of importance. On the other hand, where the shipowner requires a seaman to submit to a pre-hiring medical examination or interview and the seaman intentionally misrepresents or conceals material medical facts, the disclosure of which is plainly desired, then he is not entitled to an award of maintenance and cure. In the nondisclosure context, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff subjectively believed that his employer would deem his medical condition a matter of importance. The intentional misrepresentation concealment standard, by contrast, is purely objective.

Key argued the district court should have applied the objective concealment standard. Although Key did not subject Meche to a pre-employment examination or interview, its predecessor, Moncla, did. Several months after Moncla hired Meche, Key purchased Moncla's marine division and thereby “acquired all of its assets and all of its liabilities.” After reviewing Moncla's pre-employment medical examination protocols and deeming them sufficient, Key hired Meche, along with Moncla's other former employees, without subjecting them to updated medical examinations. Key therefore maintained that a misrepresentation to Moncla was tantamount to a misrepresentation to Key for the purposes of the McCorpen defense. The Fifth Circuit agreed. Because Meche’s former employer subjected him to a medical examination, and because Key acquired that company shortly thereafter and relied on its prior medical examinations, Key was entitled to the benefit of the McCorpen defense. The Fifth Circuit vacated the awards against Doucet and Key in their entirety and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants.