Case Name: Lanny M. Huseman v Icicle Seafoods, Inc.
Date of Judgment: 27^th December 2006
Court: U.S. - 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals
Judges: Justices Reinhardt, McKeown and Clifton
Citation: 471 F. 3d 1116

Background: The Appellant, Lanny M. Huseman ("seaman") appealed the adverse ruling granting a summary judgment for Icicle Seafoods, Inc. ("employer"). The Court held that the Employer was not liable to the seaman for his injuries since he received state Worker's Compensation and filed his claim three and one-half years after the injury occurred.

The injury happened while seaman was working aboard the "Discovery Star" ("the Vessel"). At the time of his hire, the seaman had received a "Terms of Employment" manual, which included a clause about his potential maritime benefits. These benefits included, inter alia, Alaska Worker's Compensation and Federal Maritime benefits.

Seaman's Contentions & Issues: The seaman filed suit after receiving Workers' Compensation. He contended (1) he forgot about the possible federal remedies at the time of his injury; (2) he took the position that the employer did not tell him he could pursue federal claims; (3) but admitted that the employer would probably have explained the federal remedies to him.

Employer's Contentions & Issues: The employer contended that the lawsuit filing was barred by the 3 year statute of limitations [SOL] governing maritime claims because it was filed 31/2 years after the injury. To combat the SOL defense, the seaman argued that there should be an "equitable tolling" of the SOL, or, alternatively, the actions of the employer were such that they should be "equitably estopped" from prevailing.

Held:

(1) "Equitable tolling" focuses on whether there was excusable delay by the plaintiff and it "may be applied if, despite all due diligence, a plaintiff is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his claim." According to the Court, Huseman had done nothing to inquire about the availability or extent of federal remedies available, and had never inquired about the timing for filing of federal benefits. Under these circumstances, Huseman has not shown the requisite due diligence for "equitable tolling" to be applied.

(2) The Court then looked at "equitable estoppel", which focuses on the seaman's actual and reasonable reliance on the employer's conduct. The Huseman admitted to the trial court that no one told him his only benefits were available through Workers' Compensation, and he had additionally forgotten about his federal remedies. Accordingly, Huseman could not establish actual and reasonable reliance as required for "equitable estoppel".

(3) After deciding the "equitable tolling" and "equitable estoppel" claims had not been established by the evidence, the Court then discussed the validity of the maintenance and cure claim brought by the Seaman. The Seaman's short delay in bringing the suit to federal court must be balanced against any prejudice that would be suffered by the employer if the claim were to proceed. The Court remanded this issue to the District Court.

Action: The Court affirmed the District Court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the employer that the Jones Act and Unseaworthiness claims were time barred under the three year statute of limitations but remanded the case to the district court to decide whether Huseman's delay caused prejudice to the employer.

Comment:

The elements of "equitable estoppel" are: (1) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted misrepresented or concealed material facts; (2) the party to whom the representation was made lacked knowledge of the true facts; (3) the party who made the representation or concealed material facts intended the other party to act on the basis of the misrepresentation; and (4) detrimental reliance thereon.

The elements of "equitable tolling" are: 1) lack of notice of the filing requirement; 2) lack of constructive knowledge of the filing requirement; 3) diligence in pursuing one's rights; 4) absence of prejudice to the defendant; and 5) the plaintiff's reasonableness in remaining ignorant of the particular legal requirement for filing his claim.

I know of no court in the United States that has ruled that, if a seaman ignorantly thinks his injury is covered by a state workers' compensation law and begins this process, that he is automatically barred from later (and timely) asserting his Jones Act and Unseaworthy claims. The protection of a seaman's Jones Act rights has been especially guarded by the courts and only when the seaman's actions have prejudiced the employer's rights to defend themselves would such an ignorant election be problematic for the seaman.

Finally, maintenance and cure are not subject to the 3 years SOL but are subject to the employer's rights to adequately defend themselves. The duties to pay maintenance and cure arise out of a "quasi-contractual" relationship between the employer and the Jones Act employee and out sounded solely in tort theory.

Steve Gordon

http://www.offshoreinjuries.com