Concealing a Prior Heart Attack Costs a Seaman His Maintenance and Cure Claim

Conner v. REC Marine Logistics, LLC, No. 25-458 (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 2026)

---

Introduction

A Jones Act seaman who hides a heart attack on a pre-employment questionnaire may not later collect maintenance and cure when a second heart attack strikes on the job. That is the core holding in Conner v. REC Marine Logistics, LLC, where Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment against a seaman’s maintenance and cure and punitive damages claims, while letting his negligence and unseaworthiness claims proceed to trial. The decision is a clean application of the McCorpen defense and a useful roadmap for how courts analyze concealment, materiality, and causation together.

Background

Plaintiff Conner worked for REC Marine Logistics, LLC as a deckhand aboard the GOL WARRIOR. On January 27, 2024, early in his shift, his shoulder began hurting after he pulled some rope. He reported the pain to his captain, who thought Conner had pulled a muscle and told him to take Tylenol. Conner kept working until the pain returned. He was ultimately diagnosed with a heart attack. Notably, when Conner first reported his shoulder pain, he knew something his captain did not: he had suffered a prior heart attack back in 2014.

Conner sued REC Marine for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and failure to pay maintenance and cure. REC Marine moved for summary judgment on every claim.

The 2014 history mattered a great deal to the case. After that first heart attack, doctors diagnosed Conner with an inferior myocardial infarction, transferred him for a cardiac catheterization, apparently implanted a stent, diagnosed hypertension, and prescribed heart medication, a cardiac diet, and smoking cessation recommendation. Conner testified that he could not afford all of his medications and stopped taking any of them after three or four months.

Seven years later, in March 2021, Conner applied to work for REC Marine. The company required him to complete two pre-employment medical questionnaires. On one pre-employment medical questionnaire, Conner circled “no” next to “High Blood Pressure,” “Heart Disease,” and “Been a patient in the hospital,” even though his 2014 records plainly documented all three. On a separate Coast Guard form filled out the same day, he circled “no” to questions about blood pressure and about heart surgery or an implanted device such as a stent. He later admitted at deposition that he did, in fact, have a stent.

REC Marine argued that this history triggered the McCorpen defense, which cuts off a seaman's right to maintenance and cure when he conceals his medical history at hiring. Conner responded that he answered in good faith, believing his 2014 heart attack was a one-time reaction to synthetic marijuana with no bearing on his fitness for the job, and that the two heart attacks were medically different types with no causal connection.

The Legal Standard

Summary judgment requires the movant to show no genuine dispute of material fact exists and that the law entitles it to judgment. The Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant (here, Conner).

“A dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine’ if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus., Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 956 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

With that standard in mind, the Court walked through each element of the McCorpen defense.

The McCorpen Defense: Three Elements, All Met

An employer defeats a maintenance and cure claim by proving three things: the seaman knowingly concealed or misrepresented a medical condition, that condition was material to the hiring decision, and a causal link exists between the concealed condition and the injury now at issue.

“[T]here is a general principle that [maintenance and cure] will be denied where he knowingly or fraudulently conceals his illness from the shipowner.” McCorpen v. Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp., 396 F.2d 547, 548 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 894 (1968).

(1) Intentional Concealment

Concealment under McCorpen does not require proof that the seaman meant to deceive anyone. It is an objective test.

“Failure to disclose medical information in an interview or questionnaire that is obviously designed to elicit such information therefore satisfies the ‘intentional concealment’ requirement.” Brown v. Parker Drilling Offshore Corp., 410 F.3d 166, 173–74 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Vitcovich v. Ocean Rover O.N., No. 94-35047, 1997 WL 21205, at *3 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 1997)).

Because this element is objective rather than a credibility question, the Court decided it on summary judgment rather than sending it to a jury. Conner’s two questionnaires plainly asked about heart disease, high blood pressure, hospitalization, and implanted devices. His 2014 records showed all four. The Court brushed aside Conner’s initial “yes” answer that he later crossed out on one form, holding that his final, circled “no” controlled. His subjective belief that his heart attack was a one-off event did not matter either — the test asks what he disclosed, not what he believed about his own health.

(2) Materiality

The materiality element asks only whether the question was rationally related to the seaman’s ability to do the job — not whether the company would have refused to hire him outright.

"The fact that an employer asks a specific medical question on an application, and that the inquiry is rationally related to the applicant's physical ability to perform his job duties, renders the information material for the purpose of this analysis." Brown, 410 F.3d at 175.

Conner pointed to testimony that REC Marine’s own managers said a history of heart attacks would not automatically disqualify an applicant, and that the company never followed up on his crossed-out answer. The Court rejected both arguments. REC Marine's practice of sending flagged applicants for additional cardiology review showed the company cared about heart history, even if a heart attack alone was not disqualifying. And because Conner ultimately wrote “no,” the company was entitled to rely on that answer; the duty to dig deeper falls on employers only when a seaman leaves a question blank, not when he affirmatively answers it

(3) Causal Link

The final element ties the concealed condition to the injury the seaman now claims. The injury need not be identical, but courts have consistently found the same body part enough.

“[T]he causal link seems clear” where “plaintiff's prior injury was also to the left knee.” In re L.S.K. Towing, Inc., No. 94-4134, 1995 WL 350039, at *2 (E.D. La. June 6, 1995).

Conner argued that his 2014 and 2024 heart attacks were medically distinct types with no causal relationship. The Court did not need to resolve that medical dispute. Both injuries involved the same organ — his heart — and existing Fifth Circuit case law treats an injury to the same body part as sufficient to satisfy this element.

With all three elements established, the Court granted summary judgment dismissing Conner’s maintenance and cure claim.

Takeaway for seamen: If a hiring form asks about your medical history, answer truthfully. A “no” that isn’t true can wipe out your maintenance and cure claim down the road — even if you had good reasons for thinking it didn't matter.

Punitive Damages Fall With the Underlying Claim

Conner also sought punitive damages for REC Marine’s refusal to pay maintenance and cure. Punitive damages in this context require more than an unreasonable denial.

“[C]allousness and indifference to the seaman’s plight.” Manderson v. Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc., 666 F.3d 373, 383 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).

Because REC Marine had a valid McCorpen defense, it never owed Conner maintenance and cure in the first place. A company cannot willfully withhold a payment it was never obligated to make. The Court accordingly dismissed the punitive damages claim as well, citing a Fifth Circuit case that vacated a punitive damages award on the same reasoning.

Takeaway for practitioners: No duty, no punitive damages. Defeat the maintenance and cure obligation, and the punitive damages claim has no obligation left to attach to.

What Survived

The Court denied summary judgment on Conner's Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims, which these issues will proceed to trial.

Conclusion

Conner v. REC Marine Logistics is a hard lesson, but not a total loss. The Court’s ruling shows how easily a maintenance and cure claim can be lost even when the seaman believes, in good faith, that an old condition has nothing to do with his current fitness for work. That said, the ruling didn’t end Conner’s case. His Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims survive, and those claims don’t depend on a medical questionnaire from 2021. Seamen facing a similar situation should remember that losing maintenance and cure isn’t the same as losing the case. Talk to a lawyer before assuming a McCorpen problem means there's no path forward.

Read the full opinion here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-00458/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-00458-0.pdf

This summary is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on the Court's Order and Reasons dated March 16, 2026.