Jose S. Fernandez v. United Fruit Company

287 F.2d 447
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 30, 1961
Docket18548_1
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 287 F.2d 447 (Jose S. Fernandez v. United Fruit Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jose S. Fernandez v. United Fruit Company, 287 F.2d 447 (5th Cir. 1961).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

In this action, Jose Fernandez, a seaman (junior engineer), seeks to recover from his former employer amounts allegedly due him, since December 13, 1957, for maintenance and cure. The libellant left his ship in September 1956 and entered the United States Public Health Service Hospital at New Orleans, Louisiana, complaining of internal bleeding. At the hospital, in the course of an operation described as an exploratory laparotomy right hemicolectomy, a malignant tumor was removed from his colon. January 27, 1957, he was discharged as, able to resume his duties. Fernandez was paid $536 for maintenance while an out-patient between the time of his departure from the ship and the time of his return to it. After he returned to> sea and until April 27, 1957, he complained of no illness. Early in May Fernandez again became an out-patient of the Public Health Service Hospital. Then, on May 22, 1957, he was admitted as an in-patient of the hospital. At that time his ills were described as generalized arteriosclerosis, aortic insufficiency, and leukoplakia of the lip. (The leuko-plakia is not a factor in this case.) While he was an out-patient, through December 13, 1957, Fernandez was paid $1,564 for maintenance. In January 1958 the hospital found him permanently unfit to return to his former employment, because of a number of physical disorders and infirmities common to persons of his, age; he was then sixty. Since then, the hospital has consistently found him permanently unfit for sea duty. His principal difficulty now is an unfeigned anxiety reaction to the fear of cancer.

The district court found that all of the causes of the libellant’s disability were attributable to normal degenerative changes common among cancer victims and among men of his age, and that, his ills were unrelated to his employment by the respondent. The court [448]*448found also that the treatment Fernandez received was designed to maintain control of his disorders, but that there was no hope for cure, maximum cure having been effected by January of 1958; that he had not resumed his employment and would never be able to do so. At the time of the trial the libellant was receiving two pensions totalling $201 a month, one from the National Maritime Union and one from Social Security, both based on proof of his permanent disability.

A shipowner is obligated to furnish a seaman medical care and maintenance only until the seaman is cured or recovery under treatment is no longer possible. Farrell v. United States, 1949, 336 U.S. 511, 69 S.Ct. 707, 93 L.Ed. 850; Calmar Steamship Corp. v. Taylor, 1938, 303 U.S. 525, 58 S.Ct. 651, 82 L.Ed. 993; Desmond v. United States, 2 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 948; Muruaga v. United States, 2 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 318; Lindgren v. Shepard S.S. Co., 2 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 806.

After careful consideration of the record and the questions of law raised on this appeal, we hold that the evidence and the law fully support the judgment of the district court. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Related

William C. Metcalfe v. Oswell Towing Company, Inc.
417 F.2d 313 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Stewart v. Waterman Steamship Corporation
288 F. Supp. 629 (E.D. Louisiana, 1968)
Stanley J. Korbut v. Keystone Shipping Co.
380 F.2d 352 (Fifth Circuit, 1967)
Murphy v. S.S. Panoceanic Faith
241 F. Supp. 540 (E.D. Louisiana, 1965)
Verdin v. Succession of Wiseman
162 So. 2d 67 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)
Travis v. Motor Vessel Rapids Cities
315 F.2d 805 (Eighth Circuit, 1963)
Travis v. The Motor Vessel Rapids Cities
315 F.2d 805 (Eighth Circuit, 1963)
Jose S. Fernandez v. United Fruit Company
287 F.2d 447 (Fifth Circuit, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
287 F.2d 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-s-fernandez-v-united-fruit-company-ca5-1961.