Parker v. Texaco, Inc., Civ. A. No. 80-1604

Decision Date24 August 1982
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 80-1604,81-4192.
Citation549 F. Supp. 71
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
PartiesJames PARKER, Plaintiff, v. TEXACO, INC., South Coast Welding & Services, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants. Norma PARKER, Plaintiff, v. TEXACO, INC., Southcoast Welding, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kenny M. Charbonnet, William V. Renaudin, Jr., New Orleans, La., for intervenor, Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Joshua A. Tilton, Baton Rouge, La., Kevin A. Galatas, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff in No. 80-1604.

Tooley & Waldmann, Lester J. Waldmann, Gretna, La., for intervenor Tooley & Waldmann.

Christovich & Kearney, James F. Holmes, New Orleans, La., for South Coast Welding & Services, Inc. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

Lester J. Waldmann, Tooley & Waldmann, Gretna, La., for plaintiff in No. 81-4192.

James F. Holmes, Christovich & Kearney, New Orleans, La., for Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

James H. Daigle, Hal C. Welch, Lemle, Kelleher, Kohlmeyer & Matthews, Vance E. Ellefson, New Orleans, La., for Texaco, Inc.

Donna D. Fraiche, New Orleans, La., for Westbank Medical Enterprises.

CASSIBRY, District Judge:

The plaintiff brought suit for damages based on unseaworthiness under the general maritime law, negligence under the Jones Act, and for maintenance and cure against Texaco, Inc., the owner of the drilling rig "Matagorda Bay," South Coast Welding & Services, Inc., the plaintiff's immediate employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, South Coast's insurer.1 This lawsuit arose as a result of the plaintiff's fall from the vessel "Matagorda Bay" on April 12, 1980. The claim for "cure" was severed from the other claims, and an expedited trial against South Coast and Liberty Mutual only was held on July 19, 1982.

The plaintiff makes no claim for past or future maintenance in view of the fact that he has received maintenance, benefits under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, and advances in the amount of $30,808.46 for which Liberty Mutual shall receive a credit against any past or future maintenances owed to plaintiff. Thus, Liberty Mutual shall not be required to pay any further maintenance until the full amount of the $30,808.46 has been exhausted in full.2 The plaintiff does, however, claim payments for past and future medical expenses ("cure"), compensatory damages for the unreasonable failure to provide cure, and attorneys fees incurred as a result of the defendant's arbitrary and capricious failure to provide cure.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1.

Pursuant to a contract with Texaco, South Coast Welding sent its employee, James K. Parker, to work as a rig welder aboard the Texaco drilling rig, Matagorda Bay. The Texaco drilling superintendent testified that at all times his company kept a rig welder aboard its drilling rigs, and that the plaintiff has served in that capacity aboard the vessel on previous occasions. The plaintiff's schedule, as that of the rest of the crew, required him to perform whatever welding services were requested by the Texaco drilling supervisor, including routine maintenance. The drilling superintendent testified that, if he desired, he could request from South Coast Welding the services of a particular welder and that, had the plaintiff not been injured, the superintendent would have asked the plaintiff to return to the Matagorda Bay as the rig welder.

2.

On the morning of April 12, 1980, Mr. Parker was ordered by his supervisor to route mud suction lines from the mud room to a mud section unit which was attached by brackets to the side of the rig, making it necessary for Mr. Parker to work directly over the water. Later that morning, the supervisor was informed that there had been an accident and that James Parker was in the water. "The accident report filed by South Coast Welding states that the scaffolding he was standing on fell and he fell 30 feet hitting the barge below and fell into the water." He was sent by crew-boat and ambulance to Abbeville General Hospital, where he was diagnosed as having suffered a blunt trauma to the abdomen and a lesion of the liver.

3.

From April 12, 1980 until November 24, 1980, the plaintiff underwent surgery and other treatment by numerous physicians at several hospitals, including Abbeville General, South Jefferson, and Jo Ellen Smith. Most, if not all, of these physician and hospital bills were paid by Liberty Mutual.

4.

During his last admission to Jo Ellen Smith Hospital, however, Mr. Parker was diagnosed as having developed a pancreatic pseudocyst, and with Liberty Mutual's knowledge, Mr. Parker was admitted to St. Charles Hospital. He remained there, under the care of Dr. I. Brickman and Dr. Stephen Gergatz, until March 30, 1981. During this period of hospitalization, and as a direct result of his abdominal injuries and necessary surgeries, Mr. Parker suffered from and was treated for numerous post-operative complications, including hypertension, for which he has been treated since leaving the hospital. Dr. Brickman testified that the pancreatic pseudocyst was caused by the blunt trauma to the abdomen suffered by the plaintiff upon his fall from the Matagorda Bay. Dr. Gergatz testified that, considering findings that the plaintiff had a normal heart upon admission to the hospital, the plaintiff's hypertension was probably caused by the stress of surgery and extended hospitalization.

5.

On April 29, 1981, St. Charles General Hospital sent Liberty Mutual a bill for $99,000; a substantial part of this bill remained unpaid until July 19, 1982. Exhibits offered into evidence by plaintiff, and testimony elicited from Liberty Mutual employees indicate that the "cure" payment to St. Charles General Hospital was withheld apparently on the basis of some belief that Mr. Parker's medical complaints pre-existed his accident. The defendants, however, produced no evidence at trial to justify such a belief; in fact, as early as February 4, 1981, Liberty Mutual received from Dr. Brickman a report which stated clearly that Mr. Parker's hospitalization was due to his fall at work. This was followed by another report on July 23, 1981 which again set forth in detail the causal relationship between the plaintiff's injury and the fall from the vessel. In September, 1981, Liberty Mutual paid Dr. Brickman, and also paid a portion of the St. Charles General Hospital bill, but refused to pay Dr. Gergatz and the major portion of the St. Charles General Hospital bill.

Subsequently, Liberty Mutual employed a physician to review Mr. Parker's entire medical record in an attempt to establish that Mr. Parker's medical condition pre-existed his accident. However, by letter of December 28, 1981, this physician informed Liberty Mutual that he could not make such a conclusion. Thereafter, Liberty Mutual conducted no further investigation into the plaintiff's medical condition, yet continued to refuse payment for outstanding medical expenses, and continued to refuse to pay the expenses of Mr. Parker's treating physicians.

6.

At the time of trial, Mr. Parker was still under the care of Dr. Gergatz for his hypertension and pancreatic insufficiency. Dr. Gergatz testified that he has been unable to maintain control of these problems and that the plaintiff cannot reach maximum cure without hospitalization for testing, observation, and treatment. Dr. Brickman concurred in that opinion. The plaintiff is also under the care of Dr. Nolan Armstrong for mild cerebral brain dysfunction, dementia, and emotional instabilities, all of which were caused or aggravated by the plaintiff's accident and injuries. Dr. Armstrong further testified that Mr. Parker should be hospitalized for at least two months for psychiatric care simply so that Mr. Parker may once again be able to function productively in society.

7.

In addition to the bill from St. Charles General Hospital, which was settled between Liberty Mutual and the hospital on the day of this trial, Mr. Parker proved through testimony and exhibits that he expended or incurred, from April 12, 1980 until trial, expenses for medical treatment in the amount of $12,150.40.3

8.

As a result of Liberty Mutual's failure to pay plaintiff's medical expenses, the plaintiff has suffered injury, both mental and physical, over the many months since his discharge from St. Charles General Hospital. On July 16, 1981, suffering from a reaction to his heart medication, Mr. Parker was turned away from admission to the hospital because of his outstanding bill. He was treated in the emergency room only through Dr. Gergatz's intervention, and was forced to return home in spite of Dr. Gergatz's specific recommendation of inpatient treatment. Mr. Parker was again refused admission to the St. Charles General Hospital in September, 1981, when Dr. Brickman recommended hospitalization to check the progress of his recovery.

According to Dr. Gergatz, Mr. Parker still suffers from hypertension, malabsorption syndrome, and reported rectal bleeding; these problems remain uncontrolled or unimproved because of Mr. Parker's inability to gain hospital admission. Dr. Armstrong, who, as noted previously, is treating the plaintiff for psychiatric problems, testified that these problems have worsened and will continue to do so until such time as plaintiff receives hospital care. Furthermore, the mounting medical expenses, the legal action against him by St. Charles General Hospital to collect on its bill which was pending for so long, and the inability to obtain treatment, have caused plaintiff worry and anguish and have aggravated his mental disorders.

9.

Considering the circumstances involved in this case, the failure to continue cure payments was clearly unreasonable, and even fell to the level of being arbitrary and capricious. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to recover $105,000.00 as compensation for the aggravation of his physical and emotional problems caused by defendant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Mai v. Am. Seafoods Co. Llc
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 2011
    ...before treatment and because the seaman filed suit, or (4) withholding payment on a pretextual basis.44 ¶ 40 This case is similar to Parker v. Texaco, Inc., 45 where the employer refused to pay a seaman's medical bill even though it possessed a report from a treating physician that clearly ......
  • Singerman v. PBC Mgmt. Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • August 3, 2021
    ...plainly owed him under laws that are centuries old"); Stewart v. S.S. Richmond , 214 F.Supp. 135 (E.D. La. 1963) ; Parker v. Texaco , 549 F.Supp. 71, 77 (E.D. La. 1982) ).Considering the unresolved material facts set forth in Section IV(A), supra , as well as the legal ramifications of thes......
  • Mitola v. Johns Hopkins Univ. Applied Physics Lab.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • December 3, 1993
    ...of his maintenance and cure claim, and thus is the only defendant potentially liable for such obligations. 5 See Parker v. Texaco, Inc., 549 F.Supp. 71, 76 (E.D.La.1981). 6 See Belcher Towing Co. v. Howard, 638 F.Supp. 242, 244 (S.D.Fla.1986) (finding employer not under duty to provide main......
  • Hodges v. Keystone Shipping Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • November 28, 1983
    ...L.Ed. 368 (1932); see Vaughn v. Atkinson, supra; Picon v. American Offshore Fleet, Inc., 576 F.2d 585 (5th Cir.1978); Parker v. Texaco, Inc., 549 F.Supp. 71 (E.D.La.1982). On July 22, 1982, approximately ten months after the accident, defendants made the first maintenance payment. The secon......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT