Arrufat v. Panama Canal Co.

S.D. New York

Arrufat v. Panama Canal Co.

199 F. Supp. 832, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3003

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedDecember 8, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 F. Supp. 832 (Arrufat v. Panama Canal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arrufat v. Panama Canal Co., 199 F. Supp. 832, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3003 (S.D.N.Y. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

FEINBERG, District Judge.

This is an action described by plaintiff as one “for damages for maintenance and cure benefits and for unearned wages on behalf of an American Merchant Seaman who became disabled while on foreign articles of the defendant’s vessel * * * while on shore leave in his home port.” Defendant’s answer, among other things, alleges that it is an agency and instrumentality of the United States. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The basis of the motion is that plaintiff’s sole remedy is provided by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, as amended, (“F.E. C.A.”) 5 U.S.C.A. § 751 et seq.

Decisions of the Court of Appeals for this Circuit would, except for one point discussed below, appear to require dismissal without further discussion. Patterson v. United States, 258 F.2d 702 (2 Cir.1958), aff’d, 359 U.S. 495, 79 S.Ct. 936, 3 L.Ed.2d 971 (1959), rehearing denied, 360 U.S. 914, 79 S.Ct. 1293, 3 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1959); Mills v. Panama Canal Co., 272 F.2d 37 (2 Cir.1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 961, 80 S.Ct. 877, 4 L.Ed.2d 876 (1960). These cases make clear the exclusive nature of the remedy under the F.E.C.A.

Plaintiff, however, raises the question whether these, or similar, decisions apply to a claim for maintenance and cure and unearned wages. The answer is that, they clearly do. In Patterson, one of the four companion cases decided involved an appeal from a decree dismissing a libel for damages and maintenance and cure. Sullivan v. United States, 130 F.Supp. 53 (S.D.N.Y.1955). The decree of dismissal was affirmed by Patterson. In Mills v. Panama Canal Co., Civil No. 136-54 (S.D.N.Y.1959), which involved defendant in the instant case, the trial court dismissed a compláint which included a count for maintenance and cure. The dismissal was affirmed, Mills V. Panama Canal Co., supra. In Scott v. Panama Canal Co., 170 F.Supp. 737 (S.D. N.Y.1958), this Court also dismissed a complaint seeking damages and maintenance and cure against this defendant on the ground now urged by defendant.¹ Finally, the case which con[833]*833tains the rationale of the above decisions [Johansen v. United States, 343 U. S. 427, 72 S.Ct. 849, 96 L.Ed. 1051 (1952)] involved a libel seeking “damages, wages, maintenance and cure.” Ibid. at 429, 72 S.Ct. at 852. See also Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty, 255 (1957).

Under these authorities, the complaint must be dismissed.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FEINBERG, District Judge.

This is an action described by plaintiff as one “for damages for maintenance and cure benefits and for unearned wages on behalf of an American Merchant Seaman who became disabled while on foreign articles of the defendant’s vessel * * * while on shore leave in his home port.” Defendant’s answer, among other things, alleges that it is an agency and instrumentality of the United States. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The basis of the motion is that plaintiff’s sole remedy is provided by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, as amended, (“F.E. C.A.”) 5 U.S.C.A. § 751 et seq.

Decisions of the Court of Appeals for this Circuit would, except for one point discussed below, appear to require dismissal without further discussion. Patterson v. United States, 258 F.2d 702 (2 Cir.1958), aff’d, 359 U.S. 495, 79 S.Ct. 936, 3 L.Ed.2d 971 (1959), rehearing denied, 360 U.S. 914, 79 S.Ct. 1293, 3 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1959); Mills v. Panama Canal Co., 272 F.2d 37 (2 Cir.1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 961, 80 S.Ct. 877, 4 L.Ed.2d 876 (1960). These cases make clear the exclusive nature of the remedy under the F.E.C.A.

Plaintiff, however, raises the question whether these, or similar, decisions apply to a claim for maintenance and cure and unearned wages. The answer is that, they clearly do. In Patterson, one of the four companion cases decided involved an appeal from a decree dismissing a libel for damages and maintenance and cure. Sullivan v. United States, 130 F.Supp. 53 (S.D.N.Y.1955). The decree of dismissal was affirmed by Patterson. In Mills v. Panama Canal Co., Civil No. 136-54 (S.D.N.Y.1959), which involved defendant in the instant case, the trial court dismissed a compláint which included a count for maintenance and cure. The dismissal was affirmed, Mills V. Panama Canal Co., supra. In Scott v. Panama Canal Co., 170 F.Supp. 737 (S.D. N.Y.1958), this Court also dismissed a complaint seeking damages and maintenance and cure against this defendant on the ground now urged by defendant.¹ Finally, the case which con[833]*833tains the rationale of the above decisions [Johansen v. United States, 343 U. S. 427, 72 S.Ct. 849, 96 L.Ed. 1051 (1952)] involved a libel seeking “damages, wages, maintenance and cure.” Ibid. at 429, 72 S.Ct. at 852. See also Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty, 255 (1957).

Under these authorities, the complaint must be dismissed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 F. Supp. 832, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrufat-v-panama-canal-co-nysd-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack