Upper River Services, L.L.C. v. Heiderscheid

Background

Upper River Services, L.L.C. operates shipyards and vessels that move barges on the Mississippi River. Andrew Heiderscheid worked for the company as a deckhand in the fall of 2018. During the winter off-season, he accepted a temporary position in the company’s on-shore fabrication shop, with the understanding that he would return to deckhand duties when normal river operations resumed.

On January 21, 2019, while working in the fabrication shop, Heiderscheid lifted a piece of steel and felt something in his back. He reported the incident and received medical care. Later, he was diagnosed with cauda equina syndrome caused by a herniated disc and underwent surgery. The medical records also stated that he had reported lower-back pain beginning about a month before the January 21 event.

Heiderscheid filed a Minnesota workers’ compensation claim. A state workers’ compensation judge dismissed that claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without prejudice if Heiderscheid were later found not to be a seaman. In this federal case, Upper River Services sought declarations concerning Heiderscheid’s status and its potential liability. The court had previously ruled that Heiderscheid was a seaman at the time of his injury.

Heiderscheid’s amended answer asserted that he was a land-based worker when injured and was entitled to state workers’ compensation benefits. Alternatively, he argued that, if he was a seaman, Upper River Services was negligent under the Jones Act and owed him maintenance and cure. He later conceded that he was no longer pursuing an unseaworthiness claim.

Summary-judgment standard

The court applied Rule 56’s summary-judgment standard. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The party opposing summary judgment must identify specific evidence showing a genuine issue for trial.

Jones Act negligence

The Jones Act allows a seaman injured in the course of employment to sue the employer for negligence. To proceed, Heiderscheid had to show an employment-related injury, negligence by Upper River Services, and causation—meaning that the company’s negligence contributed at least in part to the injury.

Upper River Services argued that Heiderscheid had no evidence that it breached a duty or caused his injury. It pointed to his signed statement and deposition testimony that he did not believe the company had done anything to cause the injury. Heiderscheid responded that the company failed to train him adequately about lifting heavy objects, using lifting equipment, and asking for help.

The court found no evidence from which a jury could infer that Upper River Services acted unreasonably. Heiderscheid knew lifting equipment was available, knew how to use it, had used it before, and could have asked available employees for help. He chose not to use the equipment or ask for help because he believed he did not need assistance. The court concluded that his speculation about a possible stretching routine or additional training did not create a genuine factual dispute.

The court also held that Heiderscheid lacked evidence of causation. Because the medical records indicated earlier back pain and did not clearly connect his condition to lifting the steel on January 21, the cause of the injury was not obvious to a layperson. The court therefore required medical or expert evidence, but Heiderscheid offered no testimony from a medical professional.

The court concluded that Upper River Services was not liable for Jones Act negligence. To the extent the counterclaim asserted that claim, the court dismissed it with prejudice.

Maintenance and cure

Maintenance and cure are maritime-law benefits for a seaman. Maintenance is a living allowance, cure covers medical expenses, and wages can include unearned wages. The court explained that a seaman must establish, among other things, the injury’s connection to service, any applicable wages, and expenses or liabilities for medical care, food, and lodging.

Maintenance

The court granted summary judgment against the maintenance claim. Heiderscheid provided no receipts or other documentation showing food, rent, utilities, or other living expenses incurred after the injury and before his termination. Although he testified that he paid rent, the court found that unsupported statement insufficient to provide a basis for estimating his actual expenses. The court dismissed the maintenance portion of the counterclaim with prejudice.

Cure

The court granted summary judgment against the cure claim. Heiderscheid testified that his health insurance covered his medical care and that he had not paid medical expenses out of pocket. He argued that he might later become personally liable for costs paid by his insurer, but the record contained no evidence that the insurer had made such a claim, no medical bills, and no evidence establishing the amount of any liability. The court concluded that he was not owed cure and dismissed that portion of the counterclaim with prejudice.

Unearned wages

Heiderscheid argued that he should receive wages from the injury date until the date Upper River Services resumed normal river operations. The court did not decide whether he was procedurally barred from raising the wage claim. Instead, it held that he had provided no evidence establishing the amount of any unearned wages or a contract setting a definite employment period. The court granted Upper River Services’ motion for summary judgment on the wage claim.

Punitive damages and attorneys’ fees

Heiderscheid also sought punitive damages and attorneys’ fees based on Upper River Services’ alleged callous and willful refusal to pay maintenance and cure. The court granted summary judgment against that request because it had found no entitlement to maintenance and cure and because Heiderscheid offered no evidence that the company acted callously, lacked a reasonable defense, or failed to investigate his claim appropriately.

Disposition

The court granted Upper River Services, L.L.C.’s motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Andrew Heiderscheid’s counterclaim with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.