Block Island Fishing, Inc. v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 03 March 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-14248-RGS
• Parties: Block Island Fishing, Inc. v. Jamie Rogers.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

149 F.Supp.3d 214

Block Island Fishing, Inc.
v.
Jamie Rogers.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-14248-RGS

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Filed March 3, 2016

149 F.Supp.3d 215

Thomas J. Muzyka, Kirby L. Aarsheim, Clinton & Muzyka, P.C., Boston, MA, for Block Island Fishing, Inc.

David F. Anderson, Latti & Anderson LLP, Boston, MA, for Jamie Rogers.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Richard G. Stearns, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Block Island Fishing, Inc., owns and operates the fishing vessel Hedy Brenna . Jamie Rogers is a commercial fisherman and former employee of Block Island who was injured while working on board the Hedy Brenna in October of 2013. This dispute is over an admiralty doctrine known as “maintenance and cure.” Maintenance and cure is “designed to provide a seaman with food and lodging when he becomes sick or injured in the ship's service; and it extends during the period when he is incapacitated to do a seaman's work and continues until he reaches maximum medical recovery.” Vaughan v. Atkinson , 369 U.S. 527, 531, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962).

The essential facts, viewed in the light most plausible to Rogers as the nonmoving party, are as follows.

In August of 2013, Rogers moved with his wife, two children, and brother-in-law into a single-family home in Bristol, Rhode Island. Rogers paid the first month's rent of $1,600, but cannot recall making subsequent payments. In September of 2013, Rogers joined the crew of the Hedy Brenna . On October 3, 2013, during a fishing voyage, Rogers fell off the top bunk while sleeping and injured his torso. On returning to port, Rogers was diagnosed and treated for a fractured rib. During October, Block Island paid Rogers $650 in

149 F.Supp.3d 216

maintenance and $1,857.78 in lost wages (in addition to his catch share from the October voyage).

In November, Rogers was evicted from the Bristol apartment and moved with his family to a less expensive apartment in Fall River, Massachusetts, where he paid $625 in monthly rent. On November 4, 2013, Dr. Christian Campos, Rogers's treating physician, cleared Rogers to “return to work without restrictions.” Dkt. # 44-6. However, in December of 2013, Rogers was diagnosed with pneumonia and admitted to hospital for three weeks. On February 20, 2014, Dr. Campos reported that Rogers's condition was improving, and while he still required the use of pain medication, he could increase his level of physical activity “without restrictions.” Dkt. # 44-13. In March of 2014, Rogers left the Fall River apartment and moved to Sparta, Tennessee, where he lived with his brother, to whom he paid $800 each month in lieu of rent.

In May or June of 2014, Rogers purchased a 38-foot boat for $2,500, on which he lived briefly before returning in June to Fall River. On June 19, 2014, Rogers was examined by Dr. Melanie Cardoza for pain in his lower back and left leg. Rogers reported that he had returned from a fishing trip the previous day, and that he was planning another fishing trip the following day. By July of 2014, Rogers was captaining the fishing vessel Kelly Ann . However, in August of 2014, Dr. Campos examined Rogers and provided him with a letter indicating that he was not yet fit to return to work as a fisherman. On November 18, 2014, Dr. Campos examined Rogers and concluded that his condition had improved to the point that no “further formal follow-up” was necessary. Dkt. # 44-37.

The dispute over maintenance and cure involves nine months of back and forth correspondence between Neil Stoddard, an agent for Block Island, and Daniel Alberto, a paralegal at Latti & Anderson, the firm representing Rogers. The sticking point was Rogers's claimed expenditures for rent. On January 24, 2014, Alberto made a demand on Rogers's behalf of maintenance and cure in the amount of $72 per day, listing Rogers's monthly expenses as $1,600 for rent, $119.25 for gas, $61.28 for electricity, and $362.50 for food. In the exchange that followed, Stoddard objected that the “cash receipts” he had been provided “have nothing on them to identify them as a rent payment and I find it hard to believe that there is no sort of written agreement between your client and his landlord.” Dkt. # 44-14. On March 27, 2014, Alberto mailed Stoddard a copy of the lease of the Bristol apartment.¹ When Stoddard further objected after learning that Rogers had moved from Bristol to Fall River, Alberto replied that he had provided “all of Mr. Rogers [sic] living expenses and all of his medical records.” He also threatened to seek punitive damages on Rogers's behalf, unless the requested maintenance and cure was immediately forthcoming. Id.

In late June, Block Island relented and paid a total of $68,891.41 in cure to Rogers's health care providers. On July 23, 2014, a maintenance payment of $10,800.06, based on a rate of $63.26 per day, was made to Rogers for the period from October 2013 through April 23, 2014.² On July 25, 2014, Alberto forwarded a

149 F.Supp.3d 217

copy of Rogers's lease on the Fall River apartment (from which Rogers had moved in March of 2014). After another threat by Alberto to seek punitive damages, Block Island forwarded an additional maintenance check to Rogers in the amount of $11,956.14, based on the same rate of $63.26 per day.

On November 25, 2014, Block Island filed this Complaint seeking declaratory judgment as to the amount of retroactive maintenance owed to Rogers (Count I); a declaratory judgment as to whether it has any continuing obligation to pay maintenance and cure; and a declaratory judgment as to whether it is entitled to the return of overpayments attributable to Rogers's failure to provide accurate information regarding his expenses and medical treatment (Count II). Rogers responded by filing a counterclaim on March 6, 2015, later amended, alleging negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (Count I), unseaworthiness (Count II), continuing maintenance and cure (Count III), negligent or intentional failure to provide maintenance and cure (Count IV), and lost wages (Count V). Block Island now seeks summary judgment on both Counts of its Complaint, as well as on Counts III and IV of Rogers's counterclaim. Block Island also demands $13,027.80 from Rogers in alleged maintenance overpayments.

DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment will not be granted if the evidence is “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once that burden has been carried, the nonmovant must show more...