Upper River Servs., L.L.C. v. Heiderscheid
| Decision Date | 25 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-00242 (SRN/ECW) |
| Citation | 481 F.Supp.3d 907 |
| Parties | UPPER RIVER SERVICES, L.L.C., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. Andrew HEIDERSCHEID, Defendant/Counter-Claimant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Giles B. Howard and Neal W. Settergren, Goldstein & Price, L.C., One Memorial Drive, Suite 1000, St. Louis, MO 63102, for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant.
Brett Koch, Gerald W. Bosch, and Mackenzie R. Moy, Bosch Law Firm, Ltd., 3900 Northwoods Drive, Suite 120, St. Paul, MN 55112, for Defendant/Counter-Claimant.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Upper River Services, L.L.C.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 68). Previously, the Court granted Upper River Services’ motion for partial summary judgment ruling that Defendant Andrew Heiderscheid was a "seaman" at all times relevant in this case. See Upper River Servs., LLC v. Heiderscheid , No. 19-cv-00242 (SRN/ECW) (Doc. No. 64), 2020 WL 339139 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2020). Now, Upper River Services seeks summary judgment as to negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (2018), and as to any obligation it may have for "maintenance and cure" under maritime law. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Upper River Services, L.L.C.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 68).
The facts relevant to this motion are largely the same as the facts this Court considered when it granted Upper River Services’ ("URS") motion for partial summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court relies in part on the relevant factual background from its prior order, supplemented by certain record evidence specific to the issues presented in URS’ present motion.
URS "operates two shipyards and a fleet of vessels that move barges on the Mississippi River." Heiderscheid , 2020 WL 339139, at *1. Heiderscheid was employed by URS as a deckhand in the fall of 2018 until the season ended on December 20 of that year. Deckhands are typically laid off at the end of the season every year as operations on the locks close due to winter conditions. Heiderscheid , 2020 WL 339139, at *2 ; (see also Def. Depo. at 16.) Heiderscheid, however, was offered a temporary winter position by URS—beginning on January 7, 2019—so that he could continue working during the off-season in URS’ on-shore fabrication shop, which involved different duties than those of a deckhand. (Def. Depo. at 16; Pl. Ex. G, Def.’s Workers Compensation Hearing Testimony ("Workers’ Comp. Testimony") [Doc. No. 70-8] at 97, 58–59.) The understanding was that he would work in that role until URS’ fleet resumed normal operations, at which time he would return to normal deckhand duties. (Def. Depo. at 19.) Heiderscheid was always paid $15 an hour while working for URS, even though his job responsibilities changed temporarily during the winter off-season. (Id. at 20.) Although Heiderscheid received training on how to work as a deckhand, he did not receive any additional training when he temporarily switched to shoreside duties. (Id. at 9.)
On January 21, 2019, while working in URS’ fabrication shop, Heiderscheid "picked up a piece of steel and turned to throw it into a bin, and that's when [he] felt something in his back." (Id. ) He told his supervisor, Bill Fuller, when it happened, that he felt a pull in his back. (Id. at 27.) The next day, January 22, 2019, Heiderscheid worked a full 10-hour shift, but testified that it was hard for him to complete his job duties. (Id. at 28–30; Workers’ Comp. Testimony at 97.) Because of Heiderscheid's difficulties, Fuller suggested he seek medical attention. (Workers’ Comp. Testimony at 65.) That same day, Heiderscheid went to the emergency room for an "evaluation of back pain." (Pl. Ex. B, January 22, 2019 Medical Records [Doc. No. 70-3] at 1.) According to the treating physician's notes, Heiderscheid reported that he had injured his lower back about a month earlier and was experiencing numbness in his extremities that was worsening. (Id. ) He was preliminarily diagnosed with back pain. (Id. at 3.)
On January 29, 2019, Heiderscheid filled out a URS injury report, in which he stated that on the date of his injury, he was "lifting a [piece] of steel, cleaning the work area" in the fabrication shop when he injured his lower back. (Pl. Ex. D [Doc. No. 70-5].) That same day, he signed a statement explaining that he did "not have a history of back pain or injuries," that the piece of steel he lifted was "not any heavier or more awkward than any other steel or tools [he] had picked up that afternoon," that he "did not feel as if [he] needed any help lifting th[e] piece of steel [although his supervisor] was available if [he] had needed help," and that he did "not feel as if [URS] did anything to cause [his] injury." (Pl. Ex. C [Doc. No. 70-4].) Heiderscheid's position on this statement has been inconsistent. In his deposition, for example, Heiderscheid testified that "no one told him what to write" in the statement and that he filled out the injury report on his own. (Def. Depo. at 33–35.) However, in his workers’ compensation hearing, Heiderscheid said that he was not involved in drafting the statement he signed and believed that an employee at URS drafted it. (Workers’ Comp. Testimony at 70, 111.) Nevertheless, Heiderscheid confirmed that the information contained in his signed statement was truthful. (Id. )
On the same day that Heiderscheid filled out the URS injury report and signed the statement explaining what had happened (January 29), URS terminated him for allegedly misrepresenting the cause and date of his injury. (See Workers’ Comp. Testimony at 72–73.) At the time of his termination, URS had already been provided with Heiderscheid's initial emergency room visit notes. (Id. ) Notably, both the January 22, 2019 hospital visit records, as well as Heiderscheid's sworn testimony before a Minnesota workers’ compensation judge, make clear that Heiderscheid was suffering from back pain about four weeks before his alleged January 21 injury. (January 22, 2019 Medical Records at 3; Workers’ Comp. Testimony at 60–61.) During the workers’ compensation hearing, Heiderscheid attempted to explain the discrepancy in the evidence by offering a few possible explanations for his earlier back pain: (1) the earlier back pain was in a different part of his back; (2) the earlier pain had subsided by the time he went back to work on January 7; (3) the earlier pain had been occurring while he was still working as a deckhand in November; or (4) the reference to earlier back pain was mistakenly entered into the medical notes. (Workers’ Comp. Testimony at 61, 63, 103–105.) Still, Heiderscheid provides no medical expert testimony differentiating between the cause of any of the back pain at issue.
On January 31, 2019, Heiderscheid visited HealthEast Neurosurgery, and reported weakness and numbness in both legs, as well as gait and balance issues. (Pl. Ex. E, January 31, 2019 HealthEast Neurosurgery Records [Doc. No. 70-6] at 1.) He was diagnosed with Cauda Equina Syndrome, a condition involving a bundle of "spinal nerve roots ... below the first lumbar" and characterized by "pain, paresthesia, and weakness[.]"1 (Id. at 1.) The condition was apparently caused by a large herniated disc "at L4-5[.]" (Id. at 4.) On February 1, 2019, Heiderscheid underwent lower back disc surgery to remove the offending disc. (January 31, 2019 HealthEast Neurosurgery Records at 2; Pl. Ex. F, February 1, 2019 HealthEast Surgical Report [Doc. No. 70-7] at 3.) For about a week after the surgery, he had difficulty walking, and did not fully recover for at least a month. (Def. Depo. at 100, 104.)
On March 11, 2019, Heiderscheid started a new position at Tradesmen International, earning a higher salary than he was earning with Upper River Services. (Workers’ Comp. Testimony at 77; Def. Depo. at 65–67.) At both his workers’ compensation hearing and his deposition, Heiderscheid testified that he had not paid any of his medical bills out-of-pocket and, to date, he has not provided any records indicating otherwise. (Def. Depo. at 64; Workers’ Comp. Testimony at 77–78.)
A few other background facts are worth noting here. The record is silent as to whether Heiderscheid filed for unemployment following his termination, and the only pay stubs in the record relate to Heiderscheid's work with URS up until the date of his injury. (See generally Def.’s Am. Resp. for Prod.; Def. Ex. 3, Wage R. from URS [Doc. No. 74-4].) The last pay period Heiderscheid was on URS’ payroll was between January 26 and February 1, during which he worked 20 hours. (Wage R. from URS at 4.)
Up until his termination by URS on January 29, 2019, Heiderscheid testified that he was living in a halfway house, but moved into a new apartment on January 29 and paid rent at $575 a month. (Def. Depo. at 93, 124.) On July 1, 2019, Heiderscheid moved to a different apartment where he testified that his rent was $500 per month plus utilities. (Id. at 93, 123–124.)
On January 31, 2019, Heiderscheid filed a Claim Petition seeking workers’ compensation benefits with the Minnesota Office of Administration Hearings. See Heiderscheid , 2020 WL 339139, at *2. The next day, on February 1, 2019, URS filed the present declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Heiderscheid was "employed as a seaman governed by federal maritime law," and further, that URS was not liable for any negligence or maintenance and cure stemming from Heiderscheid's alleged injury. (Compl. [Doc. No. 1] at ¶ 15(b).)2 On May 24, 2019, Heiderscheid filed an answer to URS’ complaint, which he subsequently amended on June 10. (See Answer [Doc. No. 24]; Am. Answer [Doc. No. 26].) In his Amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial