Recent Updates
August 13, 2008
CREWMAN SUFFERS NECK INJURY ABOARD MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHRIMPING VESSEL
July 24, 2008
420,000 GALLON OIL SPILL CLOSES MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR NEW ORLEANS
July 21, 2008
COAST GUARD SEARCHING FOR TWO MISSING CREWMEMBERS
July 07, 2008
CRUISE SHIPS RUNS AGROUND NEAR GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK
June 25, 2008
SUPREME COURT REDUCES DAMAGES IN EXXON VALDEZ SPILL CASE; SUGGESTS 1:1 DAMAGES RATIO FOR MARITIME CASES
June 20, 2008
NORTHWEST RECREATIONAL BOATING FATALITIES UP 18%
June 17, 2008
AT-SEA GAS EXPOSURE CAUSES DEATH OF CREWMEMBER
June 16, 2008
INVESTIGATION BEGUN IN FATAL SAILBOAT SINKING
June 02, 2008
TWO INJURIES IN TWO DAYS FOR VIRGINIA TUG WORKERS
May 29, 2008
MECHANICAL PROBLEM LIKELY CAUSE OF FATAL HELICOPTER CRASH
Archives
COURT OF APPEALS REVISITS MARITIME PREEMPTION
Posted by: Joseph S. Stacey
June 12, 2007
Topic: Legal Cases and Concerns
The way maritime cases are handled in Washington State courts was revisited recently in the case Lam v. Global Medical Systems. The case arose from the death of Cuong Dang, who died aboard a factory trawler from complications of untreated diabetes. Mr. Dang's window Khung Lam sued the vessel's owner under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) and was successful in recovering damages.
Here's where the case gets interesting: the company that owned the vessel received medical advice from a company called Global Medical Systems (GMS). GMS purported to provide expert medical advice and consultations, but the doctors consulted in Mr. Dang's case failed to recognize his symptoms as a result of untreated diabetes. They instead advised that he was psychotic and should be arrested, and suggested valium and physical restraint instead of tests to rule out illnesses such as diabetes. This poor medical advice directly resulted in Mr. Dang's death, and Ms. Lam sued for malpractice.
In Lam v. Global Medical Systems, the defense argued that since Mr. Dang died more than three miles offshore, DOHSA preempted any claim of malpractice, and therefore the case fell under federal admiral jurisdiction and could not be tried in state courts. On appeal, however, the state courts found that DOHSA preempts state wrongful death acts, but that this preemption does not prevent the case from being tried at all. Rather, the state courts must apply DOHSA to the case, not dismiss it. Also, the court found that DOHSA does not confine the plaintiff to suing the vessel owners only; the doctors of GMS could also be sued for damages under DOHSA.
In the end, Ms. Lam prevailed and recovered damages from the doctors of GMS under DOHSA in Washington State courts. This ruling has confirmed the plaintiff's ability to file suits in state courts under the states' concurrent jurisdiction of DOHSA claims. It has also made it much more difficult for defendants to claim lack of uniformity in maritime law as a defense against such claims.
This ruling will ultimately be good for seaman and their families, as it provides more opportunities for compensation for deaths occurring because of lack of proper medical care at sea. This precedent will also extend beyond medical care, and will potentially offer seamen and their families the option of trying DOHSA cases in either the state courts or Jones Act courts, depending on which will offer an advantage in the specific case.
If you or a family member has been injured or killed at sea, speak with an experienced maritime lawyer about the Death on the High Seas Act, or any other area of Jones Act Law. The complex laws governing death or injury at sea require a thorough understanding of both federal maritime law and local laws. The lawyers of Beard Stacey Trueb & Jacobsen, LLP have unsurpassed experience in these areas, and have been remarkably successful in recovering millions of dollars in compensation for their clients. Contact the law offices of Beard Stacey Trueb & Jacobsen, LLP, or visit our website.
