Shipowners do not have duty to disclose and explain federal cause of action to their employees
January, 2007
By
Marilyn Raia
Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc.
471 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir 2006)
Huseman was a seafood processor aboard the DISCOVERY STAR, which was owned by Icicle Seafoods Inc. In March or April of 2000, Huseman injured his shoulder while working for Icicle. Thereafter, Huseman received continuous coverage for medical treatment and disability payments under the Alaska Workers Compensation program. Huseman never inquired about nor received any explanation of any additional benefits he may have been entitled to under federal maritime law.
Nearly three and half years after his injury, Huseman filed suit in federal court alleging federal maritime claims of negligence under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. Icicle brought a summary judgment motion arguing that Huseman's Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims were time barred and that his maintenance and cure claim was barred by laches. The District Court granted the motion. Huseman appealed arguing, among other things, that his action was not time barred because under the "wards of the court" doctrine applicable to seamen, employers have a broad fiduciary duty to affirmatively disclose and explain federal causes of action, including Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims, to their employees.
Upon review, the Ninth Circuit declined to extend the "wards of the court" doctrine to require employers to affirmatively disclose or explain federal causes of action to their employees. The Ninth Circuit explained that although shipowners owe a duty to act in good faith and to deal fairly in performing and enforcing contacts, these duties do not extend so far as to make shipowners legal advisors to their employees in all contexts. Without an affirmative duty to disclose or explain the federal causes of action that may have tolled the statue of limitations or estopped Icicle from asserting it, Huseman's unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims were time barred.
However, the Ninth Circuit remanded the maintenance and cure claim to the trial court based on its determination that a late-filed claim for maintenance and cure is barred by laches only if the employer demonstrates prejudice. Therefore the trial court had to either explain on the record the actual prejudice suffered by the employer due to the delayed filing or to reinstate the maintenance and cure claim.