Maintenance and Cure: The Seaman’s No-Fault Right to Care

QUICK ANSWER

Maintenance and cure is the centuries-old maritime duty owed by an employer to a seaman who falls ill or is injured while in the service of a vessel. Maintenance is a daily allowance for basic living expenses while the seaman recovers ashore. Cure is reasonable and necessary medical treatment until the seaman reaches maximum medical improvement. The duty is no-fault: it does not depend on whether the employer was negligent.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

What Maintenance Covers

Maintenance is a per-diem payment intended to cover the seaman’s basic shore-side living expenses while recovering from a job-related injury or illness. It typically covers reasonable food and lodging, but not luxuries, entertainment, or expenses that would be paid whether or not the seaman was injured. Maintenance is paid in addition to any cure benefits and any wage benefits and does not depend on fault.

How the Maintenance Rate Is Set

Maintenance rates vary. Some collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) set a fixed daily rate. Where no CBA controls, courts examine the seaman’s actual reasonable expenses — rent or mortgage allocable to the seaman’s living quarters, utilities, food, and basic transportation. Insurers often pay a low “customary” rate and then resist increases. We push back when the customary rate does not cover what the seaman is actually paying.

What Cure Covers

Cure is reasonable and necessary medical treatment for the injury or illness, including:

How Long Cure Lasts: Maximum Medical Improvement

Cure runs until the seaman reaches maximum medical improvement (MMI). MMI is the medical determination that further treatment is unlikely to materially improve the seaman’s condition. MMI is not the same as full recovery. A seaman with permanent restrictions can be at MMI; that does not stop a Jones Act negligence claim from going forward.

Insurers regularly try to declare MMI prematurely as a way to cut off cure. We push back where the medical record does not support an MMI determination.

When Maintenance and Cure Begins

The obligation begins when the seaman becomes injured or ill while in the service of a vessel. “In the service of” is a broad concept; the worker does not have to be on duty in the strict sense at the moment of injury, and a wide range of incidents — onboard, in transit between vessels, even ashore on assignment — can qualify.

Notice of injury and a credible medical record will both matter. The seaman should report the injury and seek treatment promptly. Failure to report and treat creates leverage for defenses.

When Maintenance and Cure End

The duty ends at MMI. If the seaman returns to work before MMI, maintenance generally is suspended for the days worked but resumes if the medical condition again prevents work. The duty does not normally extend to additional treatment after MMI even if the underlying condition flares — a separate question may arise if the condition is later shown to have been worsened by the original injury or its treatment.

Defenses to Maintenance and Cure

The McCorpen Defense

McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp. is the leading case for the pre-employment-disclosure defense. To invoke McCorpen, an employer must generally show:

  1. the seaman intentionally concealed or misrepresented a medical condition at the time of pre-employment screening,
  2. the concealed or misrepresented information was material to the employer’s hiring decision, and
  3. a connection exists between the concealed or misrepresented condition and the injury for which maintenance and cure is sought.

McCorpen does not bar a Jones Act negligence claim. It applies to maintenance and cure. Pre-employment medical questionnaires are scrutinized by both sides — what was asked, what was disclosed, and what the seaman could fairly have understood the question to mean.

Willful Misconduct of the Seaman

Willful misconduct or gross intoxication may bar maintenance and cure. The standard is high. Ordinary negligence by the seaman does not.

Injury Not in the Service of the Vessel

If the injury truly arose outside the service of the vessel, maintenance and cure may not apply. Courts read “in the service of the vessel” broadly, and most ordinary onboard or assignment-related injuries qualify.

Remedies for Wrongful Denial

Compensatory Damages

If the employer fails to pay maintenance and cure when it is owed, the seaman may recover the unpaid amounts and additional compensatory damages caused by the failure — for example, the worsening of a medical condition because needed treatment was withheld.

Attorney’s Fees

Attorney’s fees are generally not recoverable on a Jones Act negligence claim. They may, however, be recoverable in connection with the wrongful denial of maintenance and cure. Where the employer’s refusal was unreasonable or arbitrary, courts have awarded fees as part of the remedy for the breach.

Punitive Damages

Where the employer’s denial of maintenance and cure is willful, arbitrary, or in bad faith, punitive damages may be available. Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009), confirmed punitive damages are available for willful failure to pay maintenance and cure. This is the recognized punitive-damages avenue in maritime injury work — separate from any Jones Act negligence theory and separate from unseaworthiness.

Practical point. An employer’s documented denial, delay, or short-payment of maintenance and cure can transform a routine case into one with substantial additional exposure. We document the timeline carefully when the facts support a willful-denial claim.

Remedies for Wrongful Denial

  1. Get the denial in writing. Ask for a written explanation.
  2. Do not stop seeking medical treatment. Continue treating with your physicians.
  3. Keep records — bills, receipts, communications with the carrier, payment stubs.
  4. Avoid recorded statements without counsel.
  5. Call a maritime injury lawyer. Quickly. Delay benefits the employer, not you.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. How much is maintenance per day?

It depends. Some collective bargaining agreements set a fixed rate. Where no CBA applies, the rate is based on the seaman’s actual reasonable shoreside living expenses. Insurers often pay a low “customary” rate; that is frequently below what the seaman actually needs and is regularly contested.

Generally yes. Maintenance and cure is no-fault. Ordinary negligence by the seaman does not bar maintenance and cure. Willful misconduct or gross intoxication might, but the bar is high.

An MMI determination is the legal trigger for ending cure, but premature MMI declarations are common and can be challenged. Independent medical examinations, second opinions, and treating-physician records all matter.

McCorpen requires intentional concealment, materiality, and connection between the concealed condition and the injury. Many McCorpen defenses fail on materiality or on the question of intent. Bring all your pre-employment paperwork to the consultation.

Maintenance and cure has its own analysis, often pursued together with a Jones Act claim governed by the three-year limitations period. A seaman should not wait. Documents disappear and so do witnesses.

Possibly, where the denial was willful, arbitrary, or in bad faith. Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend confirmed punitive damages are available for willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.

Talk to a Houston Martime Injury Lawyer

If you were injured offshore, on a vessel, or while working as part of a maritime crew, Raven Injury Law wants to hear from you. We will sit down with you, listen, look at the records, and tell you honestly whether we believe you have a case. There is no charge for the initial consultation.

Office: 1300 McGowen Street, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77024

We accept Jones Act and offshore injury cases on a contingency basis. No attorney’s fees unless we recover for you.

About the Author. Charles M. R. Vethan is the founding attorney of Raven Injury Law and Vethan Law Firm, PC. He is a member of the State Bar of Texas and has over 25 years of trial and arbitration experience. He is Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in both Civil Trial Law and Consumer and Commercial Law — a dual specialization held by fewer than 1% of Texas attorneys. He has handled over 20,000 matters and tried more than 90 cases to verdict or final award.

Maritime appellate support: Joseph L. Lanza, of counsel, brings appellate practice experience in the Fifth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, the federal circuits with the heaviest concentration of maritime injury appeals.

Reviewed: Content reviewed and approved by Charles M. R. Vethan, responsible attorney, prior to publication.

Disclaimer. This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Reading this page or contacting Raven Injury Law does not establish a lawyer-client relationship; that relationship is formed only through a written engagement agreement. Maritime law is fact-specific. The application of the Jones Act, general maritime law, or any other statute to your case depends on facts not set out here.

Past results disclaimer. Prior results described or referenced do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each case is different and depends on the law, the facts, the evidence preserved, the venue, and many other variables.

Attorney advertising. This communication is attorney advertising under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Part VII. Responsible attorney: Charles M. R. Vethan. Principal office: 1300 McGowen Street, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77004. (281) 500-1000.