## Facts

- Leopoldo Morales worked as a seaman aboard the shrimp vessel F/V GARIJAK, owned by Garijak, Inc.
- Morales testified that on July 27, 1983, he slipped and fell on the vessel’s back deck, injuring his wrist.
- Morales stated he told the captain about the accident but continued working for about two weeks to finish the trip.
- After returning to port, Morales went to the owner’s office for paychecks and, by his account, did not report the accident there and did not appear obviously injured.
- A co-worker did not witness the fall but overheard discussion about it and later told the captain that Morales had fallen.
- Weeks later, Morales’s attorney demanded maintenance and cure for a broken wrist allegedly suffered aboard the vessel.
- Garijak refused to pay, disputing that the injury occurred in the service of the ship.
- Morales sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law for negligence/unseaworthiness and for wrongful refusal to pay maintenance and cure.
- A jury found the injury occurred aboard the vessel, awarded maintenance and cure, and awarded a single lump sum combining compensatory damages for failure to pay maintenance and cure and attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Garijak unreasonably refused to pay maintenance and cure, permitting compensatory damages.
2. Whether the evidence showed an arbitrary, capricious, or callous refusal sufficient to justify attorney’s fees.
3. Whether the judgment correctly reflected the continuing duty to pay maintenance and cure through maximum medical improvement.

## Decision

- The court affirmed that substantial evidence supported liability for compensatory damages based on an unreasonable failure to pay maintenance and cure.
- The court vacated the attorney’s-fee component because the evidence did not establish arbitrary, capricious, or callous conduct.
- Because the jury returned a single undifferentiated lump sum for compensatory damages and attorney’s fees, the court vacated that combined award and remanded to determine compensatory damages alone.
- The court modified the judgment to require Garijak to continue paying maintenance and cure until Morales’s physician confirms maximum cure (maximum medical improvement).

## Legal Principles

- Maintenance and cure is owed when a seaman is injured in the service of the ship and continues until maximum cure (maximum medical improvement).
- An unreasonable refusal or delay in paying maintenance and cure supports compensatory damages proximately caused by the failure to pay.
- Attorney’s fees are available only for more culpable nonpayment—conduct that is callous, recalcitrant, arbitrary, or capricious—rather than merely mistaken or unreasonable.
- When a verdict improperly combines recoverable compensatory damages with an impermissible attorney’s-fee award in a single figure, remand is required to segregate and calculate the proper amount.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that Garijak’s refusal to pay maintenance and cure could support compensatory damages as unreasonable, but attorney’s fees required proof of arbitrary or capricious nonpayment that was not shown; it remanded to determine compensatory damages alone and modified the judgment to require maintenance and cure payments until maximum cure.


Morales v. Garijak, Inc., 829 F.2d 1355 (5th Cir. 1987)