In a notable development for maritime law, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision in Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., which upheld a jury award of $1.3 million in punitive damages. This award was granted to a crewmember who suffered from a spinal injury aboard a fish processing barge and was deliberately denied necessary maintenance and cure by his employer, Icicle Seafoods, Inc. This denial came despite the employer possessing a medical examiner’s report confirming the plaintiff’s need for spinal surgery. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal means that the Washington court’s ruling stands, maintaining the potential for punitive damages in such cases under General Maritime Law.
Background: Maintenance, Cure, and Unearned Wages
Under maritime law, injured seamen are entitled to maintenance (basic living expenses), cure (medical care), and unearned wages until the end of their employment term. This right exists regardless of who was at fault for the injury, and it is considered one of the “sacred obligations” of a shipowner. When a shipowner willfully or recklessly fails to fulfill this obligation, the seaman may pursue punitive damages as a remedy for the wrongful withholding of benefits.
Historical Context: From Miles v. Apex Marine to Atlantic Sounding v. Townsend
In the 1990 case of Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “non-pecuniary” damages, such as punitive damages, could not be awarded in cases brought under the Jones Act. This decision led lower courts to extend the ruling to bar punitive damages in cases involving the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.
However, the landscape changed in 2009 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend. In that case, the Court reinstated the right to claim punitive damages in maintenance and cure cases, stating that both maintenance and cure claims, along with punitive damages in admiralty, predated the Jones Act of 1920. As a result, the Townsend ruling reaffirmed that punitive damages were available for wrongful failure to provide maintenance and cure.
The Clausen Case and Punitive Damages
The Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods case further clarified the availability of punitive damages in the maritime context. The Washington State Supreme Court upheld a substantial punitive damages award against Icicle Seafoods after it was found to have willfully withheld critical medical care and benefits from a seaman who had suffered serious injury. The employer’s actions were seen as particularly egregious because it withheld a medical examiner’s report that supported the injured seaman’s need for spinal surgery.
The trial court in Clausen described Icicle Seafoods’ conduct as reaching “the zenith of reprehensibility.” The jury, appalled by the employer’s behavior, awarded $1.3 million in punitive damages, a decision that the state Supreme Court upheld. Icicle Seafoods petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, but the petition was denied on the first day of the Court’s term.
Why Did the U.S. Supreme Court Deny Certiorari?
The denial of certiorari leaves room for speculation as to why the Supreme Court chose not to review the case. There are a few possible interpretations:
- Implied Endorsement of the Townsend Precedent: Some legal experts suggest that the Court’s refusal to hear the case implies agreement with the lower court’s decision and the application of Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend. This interpretation would suggest that the Court considers the availability of punitive damages in maintenance and cure cases to be settled law, reaffirming Townsend as controlling precedent.
- Avoidance of a Difficult Factual Context: Another theory is that the justices may have disagreed on the merits but chose not to take up the case due to the compelling factual circumstances. The facts of the Clausen case painted the employer in an extremely negative light, making it a poor vehicle for the more conservative justices to attempt to limit punitive damages in maritime law. Given the egregious conduct by Icicle Seafoods, the Court may have opted to avoid ruling on a case where the facts so strongly supported punitive damages.
- No Need for Clarification: The Court may have felt that the issue did not require further clarification, as the Townsend decision had already established the right to seek punitive damages in cases of willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.
Implications for Maritime Workers
The Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari in Clausen leaves the Washington State Supreme Court’s ruling in place, and with it, the potential for punitive damages in future cases involving the wrongful failure to pay maintenance and cure. This development is significant for injured seamen, as it reinforces the shipowner’s “sacred obligation” to provide these benefits and holds employers accountable for willful misconduct.
Punitive damages, which are awarded in addition to compensatory damages, serve as a powerful deterrent against employers who might otherwise attempt to shirk their responsibilities. This decision is a victory for seamen and ensures that they have legal recourse when employers willfully or recklessly deny them the care and support they are entitled to under maritime law.
Anderson Carey Alexander: Advocates for Injured Seamen
At BOATLAW, LLP, we have been advocating for injured seamen for over three decades. Our firm has successfully recovered punitive damages for the wrongful failure to pay maintenance and cure, including before the remedy was briefly withdrawn following the Miles decision. With the restoration of the right to seek punitive damages in the wake of Townsend, we stand ready to pursue justice for maritime workers who have been wronged by their employers.
If you or a loved one has been injured at sea and denied maintenance, cure, or unearned wages, it is crucial to understand your legal rights. Our maritime lawyers are available for a free, no-obligation consultation to discuss your case and the potential for pursuing punitive damages. Contact us at 1-800-BOATLAW (262-8529) or visit us at www.boatlaw.com for more information.
