Alaska Employment Law

In a “maintenance and cure” claim arising from an accident off the coast of Alaska, the 9th Circuit has affirmed the trial court’s denial of punitive damages and fees, despite the seaman’s success on the merits:

We decline Ward’s invitation to create a per se rule whereby seamen who are forced to file suit in federal court to obtain payment of maintenance and cure are automatically entitled to recover attorneys fees. Such a holding would be irreconcilable with Kopczynski, 742 F.2d at 559, and Ward has pointed to no intervening higher authority “undercut[ting] the theory or reasoning underlying” that decision. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).  We similarly are not at liberty to revisit our decision in Glynn v. Roy Al Boat Management Corp., 57 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995). In that case, we held that “punitive damages are not available . . . where the shipowner has been willful and persistent in its failure to investigate a seaman’s claim for maintenance and cure or to pay maintenance.” Id. at 1505. As a three-judge panel, we are bound by Glynn.  See Miller, 335 F.3d at 900. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of punitive damages.

Ward v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 2008 WL _______ (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2008)(unpub.)