Meche v. Doucet

• Decision Date: 22 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–30032.,14–30032.
• Citation: 777 F.3d 237
• Parties: Willie MECHE, Plaintiff–Appellant Cross–Appellee v. Alex DOUCET; Key Marine Services, L.L.C., Defendants–Appellees Cross–Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

777 F.3d 237

Willie MECHE, Plaintiff–Appellant Cross–Appellee

v.Alex DOUCET; Key Marine Services, L.L.C., Defendants–Appellees Cross–Appellants.

No. 14–30032.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 22, 2015.

David Patrick Daniel, Jr., (argued), Law Offices of D. Patrick Daniel, Jr., L.L.C., Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff–Appellant Cross–Appellee.

George Hardy Robinson, Jr., Esq. (argued), Liskow & Lewis, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants–Appellees Cross–Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff–Appellant/Cross–Appellee Willie Meche (“Meche”) filed this action seeking maintenance and cure and damages under the Jones Act and general maritime law against his former employer, Defendant–Appellee/Cross–Appellant Key Marine Services, L.L.C. (“Key”), and his former supervisor, Defendant–Appellee/Cross–Appellant Alex Doucet (“Doucet”). Following a bench trial, the district court ruled in Meche's favor and against Key and Doucet on his maintenance and cure claims, but against Meche on his unseaworthiness and Jones Act negligence claims. In addition to awarding maintenance and cure, the district court awarded Meche punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and pre-and post-judgment interest against both Defendants.

Meche now appeals every adverse aspect of the district court's judgment. Key and Doucet cross-appeal and challenge the district court's judgment on several grounds. For the reasons described below, we vacate the entire judgment against both Doucet and Key. We affirm the district court's judgment in all other respects.

I.

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 claims that he injured his back on this date while lifting a hatch cover to check the oil on the vessel. Meche alleged that stormy conditions caused a five foot wave to hit the vessel and throw him over a railing.

Meche filed suit against Key (Meche's employer and the owner of the vessel) and Doucet (Meche's supervisor and the toolpusher on the rig under tow at the time of Meche's injury). 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.

The district court held a bench trial and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court first found that 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, which all stated that he had 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 that Defendants were not negligent and that the vessel was not unseaworthy.

However, the court found that Meche aggravated his preexisting spinal injury when he lifted the hatch cover on the vessel. The court therefore ruled that 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 also found that “Meche did not consider his pre-existing condition to be a matter of importance.” As a result, the district court concluded that “Meche did not intentionally conceal his medical history” and was therefore entitled to maintenance and cure.

The court further concluded that Key and Doucet had wrongfully refused to pay Meche maintenance and cure in bad faith. The court accordingly awarded Meche punitive damages and attorney's fees against both Defendants. Finally, the court awarded Meche pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

Meche then appealed, and Key and Doucet cross-appealed.

II.

“The standard of review for a bench trial is well established: Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and legal issues are reviewed de novo. ”¹ “A finding is clearly erroneous if it is without substantial evidence to support it, the court misinterpreted the effect of the evidence, or this court is convinced that the findings are against the preponderance of credible testimony.”² “A district court finding may also be disregarded if it is infected by legal error.”³

III.

Before turning to the merits of Meche's substantive claims, we must first consider Meche's argument that the district court impermissibly relied on evidence outside the record to evaluate his credibility. As noted above, the district court found that Meche provided multiple inconsistent accounts of the events surrounding his June 20, 2008 injury. In a recorded statement to a Key employee the day after the injury, Meche stated that he had strained his back while lifting a hatch cover. Meche's incident report to Key from that date corroborates his initial statement that he merely strained his back, as does his statement to his physician on that date. By contrast, Meche recounted a very different story at trial: that the vessel turned against a five foot wave in severe weather, which threw him over a railing. Meche told his son, Bertrand, a third story: that the hatch fell on him and injured his back.

No one witnessed Meche's injury. Therefore, the district court's determination of what happened on June 20, 2008 depended entirely upon Meche's credibility. Because of “Meche's conflicting accounts of the unwitnessed accident and the inconsistencies in his various statements and testimony,” the district court had “serious doubts about whether or not an accident occurred and about his claims of negligence on the part of [Key].” The court accordingly found that “the only consistency in Meche's statements and testimony related to the incident is that ... he felt a pain in his lower back while raising a hatch cover on the M/S MISS CATHERINE to perform routine maintenance.”

Meche argues that the district court should not have relied on Bertrand's statement that the hatch fell on Meche when evaluating Meche's credibility because the parties did not introduce Bertrand's deposition testimony at trial. We conclude that the court's finding that Meche merely strained his back while lifting a hatch cover is not clearly erroneous because, as described above, the record evidence supporting this finding is overwhelming even without Bertrand's deposition testimony.

IV.

Meche also argues that the district court “erroneously relied on weather reports that calculated weather in the wrong area,” rather than at the location where Meche sustained his injury. The district court, relying in part on the expert testimony of meteorologist Rob Perillo, made the following factual finding: “Based on the buoy reports and forecasts for June 20, 2008, winds were light and variable 5–10 knots and seas 1–2 feet.” This finding belied Meche's assertion that a five foot wave tossed him over a railing during a severe storm, and supported the court's finding that Meche merely strained his back while lifting a hatch cover on the vessel.

We reject Meche's challenge. Meche did not establish at trial that Perillo measured the weather at an incorrect location. To the contrary, Perillo testified on redirect examination that his analysis would cover the area where Meche's injury occurred.

The district court was consequently entitled to give Perillo's testimony whatever weight it deemed appropriate.

Moreover, the trial record contains other evidence that the weather was calm at the time and place Meche sustained his injury, namely the nearly contemporaneous incident report and another meteorologist's expert report tendered by Defendants. The district court's findings regarding the weather and condition of the seas at the time and location of the incident are therefore not clearly erroneous.

V.

Meche argues next that the vessel was unseaworthy in a number of respects, and that the district court's contrary finding is clearly erroneous. He first argues that the vessel was unseaworthy because it was inadequately lit. He contends that “[t]he lack of lights specifically prevented [him] from seeing the ocean and any wave action.” He asserts that, if he had “been able to see the waves[,] he could have braced himself and not injured his back by holding the hatch.” Given the district court's finding that Meche was not injured by the claimed wave action, Meche's purported inability to see the waves in the darkness is immaterial. The district court therefore did not err by rejecting this claim.

Meche next argues that the vessel was unseaworthy because Doucet ordered him to lift the hatch by himself. He asserts that lifting the hatch was a two-person job. The district court specifically found that “[l]ifting the hatch covers was a one man operation which [Meche] performed daily as part of his job duties as the vessel captain,” and that there was nothing unreasonably dangerous about lifting the hatch. The trial record supports the district court's finding. Thus, Doucet's alleged order that Meche lift the hatch by himself did not render the vessel unseaworthy. The district court's reasonable finding that lifting the hatch covers was a routine, one-person job also resolves Meche's related claim that Doucet should have supervised Meche as he performed the task.

...