Williams v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.

• Decision Date: 06 November 2018
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 18-22774-CV-WILLIAMS/TORRES
• Parties: SHERA HODGSON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

SHERA HODGSON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., Defendant.

CASE NO. 18-22774-CV-WILLIAMS/TORRES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

November 6, 2018

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE AND DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

There are two matters presently before the Court: a Motion to Vacate an Arbitration Award filed by Plaintiff SHERA HODGSON WILLIAMS ("Hodgson" or "Plaintiff") on July 10, 2018 [D.E. 1]; and a Cross Motion to Confirm that Arbitral Award, filed by Defendant NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD. ("NCL" or "Defendant") on July 30, 2018. [D.E. 5, 7]. Plaintiff responded in opposition to Defendant's Cross Motion on August 20, 2018, [D.E. 14], and Defendant's Reply followed on August 21. [D.E. 16].¹ The matter is now fully briefed and ripe for disposition. Following our review of the respective arguments advanced by both parties, in addition to the legal authorities governing the underlying dispute, we hereby RECOMMEND thatDefendant's Motion be GRANTED, Plaintiff's Motion be DENIED, and the arbitral award be CONFIRMED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a seafarer who worked for Defendant as a restaurant steward. [D.E. ¶ 7]. She claims that in July of 2013, and during the course of her duties with the cruise line, she began experiencing back pain. The parties' disagree as to what, exactly, caused the onset of Plaintiff's back pain; Hodgson claims that she slipped on a foreign substance while carrying trays in a vessel's galley, but Defendant contends that this incident never occurred. Nevertheless, Plaintiff received medical care and underwent conservative treatment arranged for by the cruise line as part of its maintenance and cure obligation to seafaring employees.²

The crux of the dispute centers on a surgery performed by Dr. Thomas Roush on September 30, 2016. [D.E. 1-1, p. 11]. On that date, Plaintiff underwent a bilateral laminotomy with microdiscectomy at the L5-S1 vertebral level. Id. Plaintiff contends that NCL's duty to provide maintenance and cure encompassed all costs associated with that surgery, and that the cruise line must also pay for any future care made necessary by the procedure. Defendant, on the other hand, argues that it is notresponsible for the surgery because it was, at worst, unnecessary - and motivated by Plaintiff's retention of counsel - and, at best, elective.

Plaintiff's employment was subject to the terms and conditions of her seafarer's agreement, which contained a clause mandating that any claims or causes of action asserted by the employee against the cruise line would be subject to arbitration.³ To that end, and seeking to have the cruise line pay for the disputed surgery, Plaintiff initiated suit against NCL, asserting causes of action for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, failure to pay maintenance and cure, and recovery of disability benefits under NCL's Collective Bargaining Agreement. The case proceeded to a final hearing, which took place on December 13, 2018 in Miami, Florida and was presided over by Melvia B. Green, Esq. [D.E. 5-2].

Ms. Green heard evidence, including testimony from Plaintiff, Dr. Roush, and Defendant's medical expert, Dr. Amar Rajaddhyaksha. Following the hearing's conclusion, Ms. Green reached her decision and detailed her findings in a written Final Award (the "award"), transmitted to the parties on April 10, 2018. [D.E. 1-1]. The arbitrator found in favor of the Defendant and rejected Plaintiff's ultimate claimthat the cruise line should pay for Dr. Roush's surgery. Id. In doing so, she made several findings of fact and conclusions of law:

It is found that Claimant's subjective symptoms were less than credible at [the time the surgery was performed] and more likely than not influenced by this anticipated litigation. ... It is noted that none of the three prior orthopedic surgeons that examined the Claimant prior to Dr. Roush [ ] found any lower extremity weakness.

...

In weighing the evidence in its totality, it is found that the Claimant's back surgery was not medically indicated or necessary. Credible evidence adduced at the final hearing established that the Claimant would have continued to benefit from conservative treatment, such as physical therapy, injections and/or medications, since her MRI showed no nerve root compression. Indeed, it is significantly noted that the surgery did not seemingly improve or resolve the Claimant's stated symptoms.

Finally, it is found that credible medical testimony established that the Claimant has now reached maximum medical cure ("MMC") for her back pain. That is, there is no credible medical evidence in the record that the Claimant's back condition will improve with additional medical treatment, [and a]ny further treatment will only be palliative in nature.

Id., pp. 12-13. The arbitrator went on to reject each of Plaintiff's asserted causes of action and denied Hodgson's claim for damages. Id., pp. 12-19.

Plaintiff now challenges the award, arguing that the "forum exceeded its authority by making factual findings and reaching legal conclusions for which it had no authority." [D.E. 1, p. 1]. She further argues the award "contravenes United States public policy," and that "its holdings are arbitrary, capricious and manifestly unjust." Id. Defendant opposes Plaintiff's Motion and moves to confirm the award, claiming that Plaintiff has not set forth grounds that would allow us to vacate the decision.[D.E. 5, 7]. As described further below, we find each of Plaintiff's claims in support of her Motion unavailing, and recommend that her Motion should be denied.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Agreements to arbitrate are governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "Convention"). The United States has acceded to the Convention, codified at 9 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 208. The Convention empowers a federal district court to recognize and enforce an action falling under the Convention. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 203, 207. Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act incorporates the Convention into federal law to "encourage...enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts and [ ] unify the standards by which agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are enforced." Imperial Ethiopian Gov't v. Baruch-Foster Corp., 417 U.S. 506, 520, n.15 (1974).

A court may vacate an arbitrator's decision "only in very unusual circumstances." Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 568 (2013) (quoting First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942 (1995)). Such limited judicial review is necessary to "maintain arbitration's essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway." Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 588 (2008). "If parties could take full-bore legal and evidentiary appeals, arbitration would become merely a prelude to a more cumbersome and time-consuming judicial review process." Sutter, 569 U.S. at 568 (quotations and citation omitted).

As such, a federal court should vacate an arbitral award only if a respondent can successfully assert one of the seven defenses outlined in the Convention. See 9 U.S.C. § 207 ("The court shall confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition of the award specified in the said Convention."). Those seven defenses are triggered only if the party seeking to avoid enforcement furnishes to the "competent authority" proof that:

(a) The parties to the agreement...were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or

(b) The party against whom the award was invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present his case; or

(c) The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decision on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognized or enforced;

(d) The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such an agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or

(e) The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that law was made.

New York Convention, 21 U.S.T. 2517, Art. V(1); see also Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011). The Convention also states that a court may refuse to recognize an arbitral award if "[t]he subject matter of the difference isnot capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of that country" or "[t]he recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country." Id., Art. V(2). The party defending against enforcement of the award bears the burden of proving an Article V affirmative defense applies to the case at hand. Czarina, LLC v. W.F. Poe. Syndicate, 358 F.3d 1286, 1294, n.3 (11th Cir. 2004).

III. ANALYSIS

At the outset, we note that our review of the award - and Plaintiff's arguments against enforcing same - are "among the narrowest known to the law." AIG Baker Sterling Heights, LLC v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 508 F.3d 995, 1001 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Del Casal v. E. Airlines, Inc., 634 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1981)). This limited judicial review "maintains arbitration's essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway," Oxford Health Plans, 596 U.S. at 568, and we must...