The opinion of the court was delivered by: GOURLEY
This is suit in admiralty to recover for maintenance and cure. The facts which occasion maintenance and cure for the seaman are not in dispute. The matter was originally heard by the Honorable Thomas J. Clary, specially sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, who in an opinion filed in the case of Reabe v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., D.C., 100 F.Supp. 728, held that the seaman was entitled to maintenance and cure from March 30, 1947 until March 14, 1951. Judge Clary furthermore concluded that the seaman suffered a functional nervous condition which incapacitated her to date of hearing before him and concluded that further treatment would prove of benefit to the seaman.
On July 17, 1952, an additional libel was filed by the seaman for maintenance and cure for the period from March 14, 1951 to the present date. The parties have stipulated that during such period of time that the court finds the seaman entitled to maintenance and cure, it should be awarded on the basis of $ 4 per day from March 14, 1951 through March 14, 1953, and at the rate of $ 5 per day from March 14, 1953 to date.
The medical testimony is not in dispute that the condition suffered by the seaman, to wit, a functional nervous condition, has progressively grown worse although a dispute does exist as to whether the accident was the cause of the functional nervous condition.
In view of Judge Clary's adjudication that the functional nervous condition was a proximate result of the accident, I do not believe it proper or within the provisions of law to look behind the adjudication of Judge Clary. It is my conclusion that the functional nervous condition now experienced by the seaman has continued since the date of the adjudication of Judge Clary and had become progressively worse. In addition thereto, I am satisfied that there is treatment known to medical science that might or could benefit or improve the condition and ailment now experienced and suffered by the seaman.
The law is settled that the ship owner is required to furnish medical care and maintenance, including board and lodging, until the disabled person has been cured or the disability has been declared permanent, or until such time when the maximum cure possible has been effected. Farrell v. United States, 336 U.S. 511, 69 S. Ct. 707, 93 L. Ed. 850.
1. Libellant is a citizen and resident of Twilight Borough, Washington County, Pennsylvania.
2. Respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its principal office for the transaction of business in the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
3. On August 9, 1946, the respondent, formerly known as Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, owned and operated the Steamer I. Lamont Hughes, a vessel in navigation on the Monongahela River and libellant was employed by respondent thereon as a chambermaid and was a member of the crew of said vessel.
4. On or about August 9, 1946, in the afternoon of said day, said steamer, I. Lamont Hughes, together with its tow of barges was being locked through Lock No. 4 on the Monongahela River in the vicinity of Monessen, Pennsylvania, and within the jurisdiction of this court.
5. On said date, libellant went to make a telephone call at Lock Number 4 while said vessel was proceeding through said Lock and while returning to the vessel from the Lock, she was struck on the head by a two-inch tow line when she was proceeding along the barge next to the said vessel.
6. Libellant previously filed two actions in this court; one for maintenance and cure at No. 153 in Admiralty and another for damages for respondent's negligence and unseaworthiness of the vessel at No. 7942 Civil Action, 100 F.Supp. 726, these actions being entitled Reabe v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation. In the damage action, judgment was rendered in favor of defendant, affirmed on appeal, while in the maintenance case, judgment was entered in favor of libellant on October 30, 1951. Both actions were tried before Honorable Thomas J. Clary, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, assigned specially to this court for that term.
7. In the Admiralty action for maintenance, Judge Clary specifically made the following findings which are controlling in the present action and which this court adopts as its own findings ...