Cole v. Oceaneering Int'l
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-1348 |
| Decision Date | 22 August 2023 |
| Parties | DARRYL COLE v. OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
SECTION D (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by third-party defendant Robert Davis, M.D.[1] Third-party plaintiff, Huisman North America Services, LLC, and plaintiff, Darryl Cole, both oppose the Motion,[2] and Dr. Davis has filed a Reply.[3]
After careful consideration of the parties' memoranda and the applicable law, the Motion is DENIED in part and DENIED in part as moot.
The facts and procedural history of this case have been set forth in great detail in several orders issued by this Court and for the sake of brevity, will not be repeated here.[4] On July 15, 2021, Darryl Cole filed this maritime personal injury case against Oceaneering International, Inc. (“Oceaneering”), seeking damages after suffering a stroke in February 2021 while working as a crane operator aboard an Oceaneering vessel.[5] Cole alleges that his stroke was caused by a delay in care due to his misdiagnosis by Oceaneering's onboard medic, Keith Thompson.[6] Cole asserted claims against Oceaneering for Jones Act negligence, general maritime law negligence and unseaworthiness, general maritime law maintenance and cure, and negligence under Louisiana law.[7] In the Complaint, Cole alleged that Huisman North America Services, LLC (“Huisman”) was his direct employer, but that Oceaneering was his Jones Act employer at the time of his injuries through the borrowed employee doctrine.[8]
On December 20, 2021, Oceaneering filed a Third-Party Complaint against Huisman, asserting a claim for defense and indemnity and a breach of contract claim against Huisman based upon a 2021 Purchase Order entered into between the parties through which Huisman supplied Cole as a crane operator to Oceaneering.[9] A week later, on December 27, 2021, Cole filed an Amended Complaint naming Huisman as an additional defendant and asserting a claim for maintenance and cure against Huisman.[10]
On October 10, 2022, Huisman filed a Third-Party Complaint Against Pharma-Safe Industrial Services Inc. (“Pharma-Safe”) and Dr. Robert Davis, which is at the heart of the instant dispute.[11] In it, Huisman alleges that Oceaneering contracted with Pharma-Safe to operate as its “specialized medical management provider,” and to provide an available physician on a twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week basis “for medical consultation by pager for emergency or non-emergency medical situations that may present to on duty emergency medical technicians.”[12] Huisman alleges that the on-board medic, Keith Thompson, and the on-shore physician, Dr. Davis, were employees and/or agents of Pharma-Safe and were acting in the course and scope of their employment with Pharma-Safe in furtherance of Pharma-Safe's obligations under its contract with Oceaneering.[13] Huisman further alleges that if Cole was injured as alleged, his injuries were a result of the negligence, gross negligence, and/or fault of Thompson and Dr. Davis.[14] Huisman asserts a third-party claim against Dr. Davis and Pharma-Safe pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a), alleging that it is entitled to contribution and/or indemnity from Pharma-Safe and/or Dr. Davis to the extent Huisman is ultimately held liable to Cole, including through defense and indemnity for any claim asserted by Cole against Oceaneering, to the extent any such injury resulted from the negligence, gross negligence, or fault of Pharma-Safe, its employees, its agents, and/or Dr. Davis.[15] Huisman also asserts that it is entitled to indemnity from Pharma-Safe and/or Dr. Davis to the extent that their negligence, gross negligence, or fault gave rise to Cole's maintenance and cure claim against Huisman, “which claim was recently settled.”[16] On March 22, 2023, at Cole's request, the Court dismissed with prejudice Cole's direct claim against Huisman for maintenance and cure on the basis that Huisman and Cole had settled the claim.[17] On March 31, 2023, the Court granted Huisman summary judgment on Oceaneering's third-party claim for defense and indemnity, and dismissed the claim with prejudice.[18] On August 1, 2023, the Court granted Huisman summary judgment on Oceaneering's remaining third-party claim for breach of contract based upon Huisman's alleged failure to procure sufficient insurance, and dismissed that claim with prejudice. Thus, all of Oceaneering's third-party claims against Huisman have been dismissed.[19]
In the instant Motion, Dr. Davis moves to dismiss Huisman's third-party claims against him and Huisman's Rule 14(c) tenders for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).[20] Dr. Davis asserts that the medical malpractice claims forming the basis of the third-party claims and tender against him fall outside of this Court's admiralty jurisdiction and are governed by Louisiana state law.[21] Specifically, Dr. Davis argues that the Court lacks admiralty jurisdiction because his alleged medical malpractice does not satisfy the maritime locus or maritime nexus requirements for such jurisdiction, as set forth by the Fifth Circuit in Miller v. Griffin-Alexander Drilling Co.[22] Alternatively, if the Court determines that it has admiralty jurisdiction over Huisman's third-party claims, Dr. Davis asserts that the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (the “LMMA”) applies through maritime supplementation.[23] Dr. Davis argues that, under either scenario, the claims against him are premature for failure to convene a medical review panel and should be dismissed without prejudice.[24]
Huisman argues that the Motion should be denied because its claims against Dr. Davis fall within the Court's admiralty jurisdiction, they are not premature, and dismissal is not warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to convene a medical review panel.[25] Huisman asserts that the maritime locus requirement for admiralty jurisdiction is clearly met because Cole suffered a stroke aboard Oceaneering's vessel and no part of Cole' treatment by Dr. Davis or Pharma-Safe occurred on land.[26]Huisman asserts that the two requirements for meeting the maritime nexus test are also met because Cole's alleged misdiagnosis caused an actual interruption of maritime commerce and because providing medical services to crew members aboard a vessel in navigable waters bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.[27] Huisman argues, in the alternative, that if the requirements for admiralty jurisdiction are not met, the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Huisman's third-party claims against Dr. Davis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because Dr. Davis's alleged malpractice forms part of the case and controversy that Cole seeks to prosecute against Huisman and Oceaneering.[28] Huisman further asserts that its Rule 14(c) tender of Dr. Davis should stand because Huisman's claims against Dr. Davis sound in maritime law and because they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as Cole's original claims.[29] Huisman also contends that its claims for contribution and indemnity against Dr. Davis are valid,[30] and argues that this Court should stay, rather than dismiss, its claims against Dr. Davis if the Court determines that Dr. Davis is entitled to a medical review panel.[31]
Cole likewise opposes Dr. Davis's Motion.[32] Cole, however, takes no position regarding Huisman's Rule 14(c) tender of Dr. Davis as a defendant, explaining that, [33] Cole maintains that Oceaneering is vicariously liable for the negligence of the medical professionals it chose to treat its crewmembers, such that it does not matter whether Dr. Davis is involved in this case as a direct defendant.[34] Cole, however, opposes the Motion to the extent that Dr. Davis asserts that the Court lacks maritime jurisdiction and/or that the LMMA should supplant or supplement maritime law. Cole argues that it is undisputed that the maritime locality prong of the analysis is met, as he was injured at sea by the onboard medic, and any consulting or treatment by Dr. Davis was provided through the medic for the benefit of treating a seaman on a vessel at sea.[35] Cole contends that the fact that Dr. Davis provided consultation and/or treatment through the medic for the purpose of treating a Jones Act seaman on a vessel at sea satisfies the four factors of the maritime nexus prong of the analysis set forth in Miller v. Griffin-Alexander Drilling Co., cited by Dr. Davis in his Motion.[36] Cole further argues that there is no basis for supplanting maritime law with the LMMA, as suggested by Dr. Davis.[37] Cole asserts that the Court should deny Dr. Davis's Motion because maritime law applies to this case and, “This case is and always has been focused on the negligence of the medic, Keith Thompson and his employer Pharma-Safe, for whom Oceaneering is vicariously liable.”[38]
In response, Dr. Davis reiterates the arguments raised in his Motion,[39] and further asserts that the maritime nexus requirement of the Miller analysis cannot be met based upon the direct involvement of the onboard medic in this case.[40] Dr. Davis maintains that this Court lacks maritime jurisdiction over Huisman's third-party claims against him, that the LMMA clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial