## Facts

- Peter Hernist Sana, a seaman employed as a galley worker aboard the M/V Navatek I, worked regular shifts and could be called on short notice.
- After working on March 9–10, 1995, Sana’s father observed shaking hands, a scratch and swelling near Sana’s hairline, and Sana stated he had bumped his head at work.
- On March 11, Sana became unresponsive at a church event; a CT scan was negative for head trauma, and he was released.
- Sana’s condition rapidly worsened with bizarre behavior, shaking, confusion, seizures, and medical findings consistent with possible brain infection; physicians could not determine a definitive cause.
- Sana lapsed into a coma around March 16, 1995, and remained comatose during the litigation.
- The insurer’s investigator prepared a written report summarizing interviews with Sana’s coworkers about Sana’s on-board condition and complaints of illness, offered to show Sana became ill while in the service of the vessel.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding the investigator’s report and related testimony as hearsay was an abuse of discretion where the report was offered to prove Sana showed symptoms and complained of illness while serving the vessel.
2. Whether the vessel interests could amend their answer to assert limitation of liability after the six-month period applicable to filing a separate limitation action.

## Decision

- Reversed the defense judgment on the maintenance-and-cure claim and remanded for a new trial.
- Held the district court abused its discretion by excluding the investigator’s report; the evidentiary error was not harmless because the report bore directly on whether Sana became ill while in the service of the vessel.
- Affirmed the order permitting defendants to amend their answer to plead limitation of liability as a defense.

## Legal Principles

- A seaman who falls ill while in the service of a vessel is entitled to maintenance and cure; the key factual question is whether the illness arose during service, not whether the precise medical cause is proven.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), a report prepared in the regular course of an insurer’s claim-investigation business may qualify as a business record, even if it is relevant to anticipated claims, so long as it is routinely created as part of regularly conducted activity.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 805, multiple layers of hearsay within a document are admissible only if each layer fits a hearsay exception or constitutes non-hearsay.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D), employee statements concerning matters within the scope of employment can be admissible against the employer as party-opponent admissions, including statements given during an investigation connected to the employer’s operations.
- The Limitation of Liability Act’s six-month period applies to commencing a separate limitation action, not to asserting limitation as an affirmative defense in an existing action; amendment to add the defense is governed by Rule 15 discretion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required a new trial on maintenance and cure because the excluded investigative report was admissible under the business-record and agency-admission rules and was central to proving illness during vessel service, while also holding that limitation of liability could be added by amended answer despite the six-month period for filing a separate limitation proceeding.


Sana v. Hawaiian Cruises, Ltd., 181 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999)