Phillips v. Western Co. Of North America

953 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1992)

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 had worked in the oilfield since 1973 and had been a driller for D since 1982. After an injury to his lower back, while working for a previous employer, P discovered that he had spondylolisthesis, a congenital condition involving the absence of a bony connection in the spine. He declined at that time to have fusion surgery to correct the problem, as suggested by his doctor. On September 21, 1986, he was supervising a crew of four during a 'nippling up' operation when he felt a pain in his back on the third attempt to connect the flow line. P sued D. During trial an expert testified that the manner in which P lifted the flow line manually to move it forward onto the bell nipple was an unsafe procedure. The expert also testified that the air bladder connection in use on the rig was a perfectly acceptable technology, even though it required workers to physically push the flow line toward the bell nipple. P testified that he had performed the stabbing operation numerous times and saw nothing unsafe about it. P did not use the air hoist because that would have involved waiting for completion of the gyro survey, and he testified that he wanted to keep the work on schedule so he could make the company money. After the accident, D began paying P long-term disability benefits equal to two-thirds of his salary, as well as medical benefits and maintenance payments. D introduced evidence of the medical benefits. P objected to the introduction of evidence of the maintenance pay and the long-term disability benefits. P argued that maintenance pay may not be deducted from an award of past lost wages and that the disability benefits were immune from setoff under the collateral source rule. The judge overruled the objection, stating that 'the income that the man received is in fact income, and that should be reflected so that he doesn't get a double recovery.' D had never pleaded a right to set off and did not make its purpose in introducing the evidence apparent to the district judge. The jury returned a verdict in favor of D on the negligence claim. P filed a motion for a new trial and, in its opposition to the motion, D appended an affidavit from its Vice President for Human Resources stating that the D disability plans are non-contributory on the part of the employee. The district court denied the motion for a new trial, and this appeal followed.