Coulter v. Ingram Pipeline, Inc.

511 F.2d 735 (5th Cir. 1975)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was injured on May 21, 1970, when a twelve-ton pipe on a D Barge inadvertently swung toward him and struck him in the chest. P received 'a crushing type of injury to his chest' including several fractured ribs, some of which did not heal 'by bony union.' D provided medical treatment but due to the extreme obesity of P (350-375 pounds) recovery was slow and he was ultimately referred to Dr. Robert J. Schramel a thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon retained by D for additional consultation. The surgeon recommended a strict diet and a regimen of physiotherapy and on January 4, 1971, admitted P to the New Orleans Medicenter. P was placed on a daily diet of 1500 calories and an exercise program, the combined result of which was a weight loss of approximately 33 pounds. At P's own request, and after assuring his physician that he would maintain the diet and exercise at home, P was discharged from the Medicenter. P discontinued his rehabilitative program. In early February 1971, D terminated maintenance and cure payments. Subsequent to the termination, Dr. Schramel on March 3, 1971, wrote a letter to D in which he indicated, in a very optimistic manner, that P's rehabilitation was progressing well and that it should ultimately result in P’s return to his former employment. It was not until July 28, 1971, when Dr. Schramel examined P again that he knew his patient had failed to follow the prescribed diet and exercises and weighed more than ever. Dr. Schramel reported to D on October 13, 1971, that P's condition was essentially unchanged, opining that proper conditioning might still result in P's eventual return to his former employment. P brought this admiralty suit against D and its insurer, Insurance Company of North America. The evidence shows and P admits that he failed to follow his physician's instructions. Ds justified the cessation of maintenance and cure payments by characterizing P's failure to follow the physician's advice as a knowing and willful abandonment of his prescribed cure and the district court agreed. The issues of negligence, unseaworthiness, and damages were tried by a jury resulting in a net award to P of $20,000. P's maintenance and cure claim, reserved to the court, was dismissed, the court holding that he had forfeited his right to maintenance and cure by abandoning the rehabilitative program prescribed by his physician. P appealed the judgment dismissing the demand for maintenance and cure.