Continued Chapter 3 installment 5

BLOOD ON BROWN WATER   

Down to the Wire                           Photo: U.S.Army Corps of Engineers  

Because of the impending statute of limitations, Preston filed a lawsuit against Tidewater on Nov. 30, 2001…almost three years after the accident. Had he not done this in a timely manner, Tidewater would have been able to get by scot-free without shouldering any of its obligations for this injured seaman. All a corporation has to do is be callous enough to ignore the problem until it simply goes away. Of course, this can be a recipe for a four or five-digit medical problem to result in a six- or seven-digit financial solution. Statutes of limitations exist for different laws and regulations are of different length. For a mariner wrongly
prosecuted by the Coast Guard, for example, the limitation can be as short as one month. In Preston’s case, the statute of limitations would have kicked in three years after his accident. To determine when the time limit “tolls”
for any given law, mariners should contact a maritime attorney immediately following any serious accident or injury. Our Association recommends those attorneys who practice maritime law and support our efforts to keep our
mariners informed. We list them on our Internet website.
On Jan. 28, 2002, Preston’s lawyer informed Tidewater that his doctor recommended that he undergo further surgery but that he was financially unable to do so. The attorney demanded that Tidewater resume its maintenance
and cure payments and requested that Tidewater disclose any medical records that would support a finding that he might have reached “maximum medical cure.” Tidewater never produced any such evidence.

Preston’s attorney provided Tidewater with medical records from July 2000 showing that Preston continued to complain of scrotal pain among related complaints and that he would “tentatively schedule surgery for Friday” that was never done. As of March 2001 another doctor found Preston complaining of “…severe testicle pain – unable to tolerate” and referred him to another physician to discuss removal of a testicle. Although we will spare our readers the graphic details, we want to point out that this is a particularly painful injury. The fact that the pain was constant and unbearable was just as clearly presented to Tidewater officials as it was to us. This case clearly shows that caring for injured employees did not rank as a high priority for Tidewater and serves as a clear warning to other mariners who rely heavily on corporate compassion to care for them if they are injured.

On Mar. 12, 2002, Preston’s lawyer asked Tidewater to guarantee payment of Preston’s treatment by a Lafayette urologist. However, Tidewater procrastinated and replied that it needed more time to investigate and evaluate his request for maintenance and cure.