Penn Tanker Company v. United States

310 F. Supp. 613, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13079
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedJanuary 26, 1970
DocketCiv. A. 66-G-5
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 310 F. Supp. 613 (Penn Tanker Company v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Penn Tanker Company v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 613, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13079 (S.D. Tex. 1970).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

FISHER, Chief Judge.

This civil action was brought by Penn Tanker Company for indemnity and, alternatively, as assignee by operation of law of the claim of James Hodges, deceased, against the United States of America, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2674. Hodges was a seaman employed by Penn Tanker on its vessel the S/S PENN CHALLENGER. On August 15, 1963, he sustained injuries to his eyes while welding in the course of his employment. Hodges brought a Jones Act suit against Penn Tanker in state court based upon the injuries he received in that accident. His eye condition was diagnosed as glaucoma during treatment of his injury at the United States Public Health Service Hospital at Galveston, Texas. In the course of that treatment Hodges underwent an operation on his right eye, as a result of which he lost the sight in that eye.

Faced with a claim for increased damages as a result of Hodges’ loss of sight, Penn Tanker sought to implead the United States in the state court action. The Government, however, obtained dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Penn Tanker then collaterally brought an action for indemnity against the United States in this Court, which was stayed pending the outcome of the state court suit. Subsequently, Hodges committed suicide, and his mother, Mrs. Evelyn Hodges, as temporary administratrix and the personal representative of her deceased son, was substituted as party-plaintiff in the state court action, which suit was broadened to encompass the wrongful death action. Thereafter a compromise agreement was entered into between Mrs. Hodges and Penn Tanker by which Penn Tanker paid a total sum of $25,000. The state court action was terminated by an agreed judgment, and a covenant not to sue and an assignment of any cause of action possessed by Mrs. Hodges in her various capacities against the United States was made to Penn Tanker, with the proviso that any recovery in excess of the settlement sum would be for the account of the estate of James Hodges.

Penn Tanker’s suit against the United States in this Court then proceeded to trial. Eventually, this Court entered judgment awarding Penn Tanker $12,-500 as “fifty (50%) per cent indemnity,” finding that Penn Tanker was precluded from obtaining full indemnity from the United States because Hodges had received a welding burn to his eyes on board Penn Tanker’s vessel, and finding further that the glaucoma condition of his eyes would have been permanent if an operation had not been performed. On appeal the cause was reversed and remanded for new and appropriate findings of fact and conclu *615 sions of law, 409 F.2d 514 (5th Cir. 1969). The Court of Appeals held that the liability vel non of either or both of the parties was a matter which this Court should have considered and as to which it should have articulated its conclusion. Also, it was decided that the Court should have determined whether the settlement between Penn Tanker and Mrs. Hodges was reasonable under the circumstances.

We are now instructed to enter new findings including the following matters :

(1) Whether Penn Tanker was in fact liable to Hodges;

(2) If so, whether the settlement was in a reasonable amount;

(3) What proportion was fairly attributable to the damages occasioned by the hospital malpractice for which the Government is responsible as against the injury done by Penn Tanker, including the anticipatable ultimate consequences.

In accordance with these instructions, we now make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.

James R. Hodges, a 27-year-old unmarried seaman, was employed as a second pumpman on board the S/S PENN CHALLENGER, a vessel owned and operated by Plaintiff Penn Tanker Company, from July 29, 1963, through-August 21, 1963. On August 15, 1963, while using a welding torch in the performance of his duties on board the vessel, Hodges sustained welding burns to his eyes. Penn Tanker Company was negligent in supervising the welding operation which Hodges was performing. This negligence on the part of Penn Tanker caused it to be also legally liable to James Hodges for all damages suffered by him or his estate, including the consequential damage occasioned by the negligence and malpractice chargeable to the Government.

2.

On August 26, 1963, James Hodges was admitted to the United States Public Health Service Hospital, Galveston, Texas. He complained of severe pain in both eyes, gave. a history of blurred vision for a period of about 48 hours and of frequent aching of the eyeballs for the past month. He also related having seen halos “off and on” for two years. No history was given during any of his subsequent numerous admissions to the United States Public Health Service Hospital or Veterans Administration Hospital with respect to a welding burn of the eyes. The initial diagnosis at Galveston by the treating ophthalmologist was chronic simple (narrow angle) glaucoma and acute congestive glaucoma in both eyes, a diagnosis which was actually in conflict with that of the doctors who examined Hodges in Staten Island Public Health Service Hospital and the Veterans Administration Hospital at Houston, where a diagnosis of pigmentary glaucoma was subsequently made.

3.

James Hodges had a long history' of psychiatric disturbance commencing with his first hospitalization in the psychiatric unit of the Public Health Service Hospital, Fort Worth, September 18, 1956, to December 9, 1956, and again from July 11, 1957, to February 17, 1958. The basic diagnosis was schizophrenic reaction. He was later hospitalized for this same problem at the John Sealy Hospital from March 23 to July 10, 1958, where he was treated with insulin, induced comas, electric shock therapy, and various drugs. He manifested suicidal tendencies on at least eight instances during these hospitalizations. Following this course of treatment, he returned to sea and worked on ocean vessels with reasonable regularity from January 15, 1961, through his service on the S,/S PENN CHALLENGER which terminated on August 21, 1963.

*616 4.

The treating and operating ophthalmologist at the United States Public Health Service Hospital at Galveston was Dr. Lynn H. Hammerstadt. He was under the direct supervision of the Administrator of the United States Public Health Service Hospital at Galveston, Dr. Milo Blade. In August, 1963, Dr. Hammerstadt’s history as an alcoholic became known to Dr. Blade, and in October, 1963, as a result of Dr. Hammerstadt’s excessive drinking, Dr. Blade was instrumental in having him hospitalized in the closed psychiatric ward of the John Sealy Hospital, where he remained from October 14 through October 19, 1963. The diagnosis was delirium tremens and convulsive seizure with the impression of acute brain syndrome, and the prognosis following withdrawal from alcohol was “very guarded.”

5.

While in the John Sealy closed psychiatric ward, Dr. Hammerstadt was under the care and treatment of a psychiatrist, Dr. B. W. Henry, who released Dr. Hammerstadt from the hospital following consultation with Dr. Milo Blade. Dr.

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

Related

Medici Classics Productions LLC v. Medici Group LLC
683 F. Supp. 2d 304 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Mills v. Angel
995 S.W.2d 262 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Agbor v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital
912 S.W.2d 354 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Albain v. Flower Hospital
553 N.E.2d 1038 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1990)
Wood v. United States
494 F. Supp. 792 (E.D. Virginia, 1980)
Genusa v. City of Peoria
475 F. Supp. 1199 (C.D. Illinois, 1979)
Jeffcoat v. Phillips
534 S.W.2d 168 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Armstrong v. Chambers & Kennedy
340 F. Supp. 1220 (S.D. Texas, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
310 F. Supp. 613, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penn-tanker-company-v-united-states-txsd-1970.