Job applicants must regularly deal with the question of prior injuries. Although the question is simple on its face, the difficult part is sometimes wondering, “They probably don’t mean that minor ER visit from 20 years ago. That’s irrelevant to handling this job’s duties.” This reasoning is understandable. But past medical history could surface in accident investigations. A recent federal case from the Eastern District of Louisiana illustrates this point.
The case involved a deckhand on a 140' multipurpose offshore vessel who experienced shoulder pain after pulling on a line early into his shift on a January morning in 2024. He reported the pain to the captain, who thought he may have pulled a muscle and advised him to take some Tylenol. The deckhand took Tylenol and worked until his shoulder pain returned. Unknown to the captain, the deckhand had suffered a heart attack about ten years earlier in 2014.
When the deckhand applied for employment in 2021, he had a preemployment physical and answered two medical questionnaires. He had checked “no” in response to questions about high blood pressure, heart disease, or being a patient in a hospital. However, the 2014 heart attack involved a three-day hospitalization and high blood pressure. Additionally, the deckhand had answered “no” to questions about high blood pressure and heart surgery on his Coast Guard Form CG-719K.
The deckhand’s lawsuit was based on negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure (living expenses and medical expenses, respectively). The problem was that maritime law does not allow maintenance & cure if a seaman knowingly fails to disclose a material health fact. There is even a name for this, known as the McCorpen defense (see McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp., 396 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1968) named for a seaman who had failed to disclose relevant medical history.
The McCorpen defense is based on three elements: intentional concealment or misrepresentation of a medical condition, relevance of the undisclosed information to the hiring process, and a “connection” between the undisclosed condition and the injury at hand. This defense does not destroy other parts of a claim, such as the Jones Act case itself.
