Summary
In Cooper, the plaintiff argued that he had an interest in an expedited trial because he was experiencing financial hardship as a result of his injuries.
Summary of this case from Bergeron v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 03-0344, SECTION: "R"
September 8, 2003
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the motion of plaintiff, Kenneth Cooper, to sever his maintenance and cure claim for expedited trial. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion.
I. Background
Cooper alleges that on September 12, 2002, he fell while climbing down a dark flight of stairs on an Exxon Mobil Corporation offshore platform. He alleges that he sustained severe cervical and lumbar spine injuries and the fall aggravated a pre-existing lumbar condition. At the time, Cooper was employed by defendant Nabor Offshore, Inc., aboard a jack-up rig providing services to the Exxon Mobil platform. Cooper contends that he suffered injuries as a result of the negligence of defendants, Nabors Offshore and Exxon Mobil, who failed to provide adequate lighting on the platform. Cooper now moves to sever his maintenance and cure claim for expedited trial. II. Discussion
The Fifth Circuit has held that although a seaman has the right to join a claim for maintenance and cure with a claim brought pursuant to the Jones Act, he is not obligated to do so. See Hampton v. Daybrook Fisheries, 2002 WL 1974107, *2 (E.D.La.) (citing Tate v. American Tugs, Inc., 634 F.2d 869, 871 (5th Cir. 1981)); see also Martinez v. Edison Chouest Offshore, Inc., 2001 WL 6726, *1 (E.D.La.). If a seaman joins the claims, he may later request severance of the maintenance and cure claim, to be tried on an expedited basis by the court. See Hampton, 2002 WL 1974107, at *2. In deciding whether to sever a maintenance and cure claim, courts consider the plaintiff's interest in an expedited trial of these issues, the proximity of the scheduled trial date, whether plaintiff has requested a jury trial and whether the nonmoving party opposes the motion. See id.; Martinez, 2001 WL 6726, at *1; Charpentier v. Blue Streak Offshore, Inc., 1996 WL 383126 (E.D.La.). Courts have also considered other factors, such as whether a delay in plaintiff's surgery would make determination of damages in the Jones Act case speculative and whether the same experts would have to testify in both trials. See Marine Drilling Management Co. v. Scott, 2003 WL 133218 (E.D.La.); Hampton, 2002 WL 1974107, at *2; Martinez, 2001 WL 6726, at *1; see also In Matter of Complaint of Guidry Gosclair, Inc., 1996 WL 3913 (E.D.La.).
Here, plaintiff argues that he has a significant interest in an expedited trial of the maintenance and cure issue, because he is unable to return to any type of gainful employment and is experiencing financial hardships as a result of his injuries. Plaintiff has requested a jury trial that is scheduled to take place in four months on January 12, 2004. Plaintiff points to no recommendation that he undergo surgery or that he receive some other medical treatment on an expedited basis. The same experts would have to testify in both trials regarding any damages sustained by Cooper. Defendant Nabor Offshore opposes the motion for the above reasons and also contests Cooper's status as a seaman and contends that the matter may ultimately be compelled to arbitration.
After considering the above factors, notably plaintiff's minimal interest in an expedited trial and the proximity of the trial date, the Court finds that efficiency and judicial economy dictate that plaintiff's motion be DENIED.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion to sever his maintenance and cure claim for expedited trial.