## Facts

- Wayne Michael Caulfield was a seaman employed by AC & D Marine, Inc. (AC&D).
- While working, Caulfield fell over an anchor and suffered injuries.
- AC&D had a practice of allowing injured employees to obtain medical treatment from private physicians.
- After the accident, AC&D referred Caulfield to a particular private physician.
- Caulfield instead sought and received treatment from a different private physician.
- Caulfield sued AC&D (and its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company) seeking reimbursement of his medical expenses as “cure” under the maritime doctrine of maintenance and cure.
- At trial, AC&D presented no evidence that the cost of Caulfield’s chosen treatment exceeded what it would have cost had he used the physician to whom AC&D referred him.
- The district court awarded Caulfield reimbursement for his medical expenses, and AC&D and Travelers appealed.

## Issues

1. When a shipowner permits treatment by private physicians, may it refuse to reimburse cure expenses solely because the seaman used a private physician other than the one the shipowner referred?
2. Absent evidence that the seaman’s chosen treatment was unreasonable or increased costs, may the shipowner limit or avoid its cure obligation?

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment awarding Caulfield reimbursement of his medical expenses as cure.
- The court rejected the argument that AC&D could avoid paying cure simply because Caulfield selected a different private physician than the one AC&D recommended.
- Because AC&D offered no proof that Caulfield’s choice resulted in higher or unreasonable charges, AC&D remained responsible for the reasonable costs of cure.

## Legal Principles

- Maintenance and cure requires a shipowner to pay a seaman’s reasonable and necessary medical expenses (“cure”) resulting from injury or illness incurred in the service of the vessel, generally without regard to fault, until maximum cure is reached.
- Where a shipowner allows injured seamen to obtain treatment from private physicians, the seaman’s use of a different competent private physician does not, by itself, defeat the right to recover cure.
- If a shipowner seeks to reduce or deny cure based on alleged excess cost or unreasonableness of the seaman’s chosen medical care, the shipowner must present evidence supporting that claim.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that AC&D had to reimburse Caulfield’s reasonable medical expenses as cure even though he declined the employer-referred private physician, because AC&D failed to show that Caulfield’s chosen treatment was more expensive or otherwise unreasonable.


Caulfield v. AC & D Marine, 633 F.2d 1129 (1981)