Court Denies Summary Judgment Across the Board in Jones Act Seaman’s Injury Suit

Donahue v. Gnots-Reserve, Inc., No. 25-527 (E.D. La. Apr. 20, 2026)

---

Introduction

A federal judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana just handed down a decision that reads like a checklist for what not to do when defending a Jones Act injury claim. In Donahue v. Gnots-Reserve, Inc., Judge Jane Triche Milazzo denied all three motions the defendant vessel owner filed against an injured seaman. The ruling covers three separate but related issues: maintenance and cure, causation, and a shipowner’s attempt to countersue its own injured worker. Each issue offers a lesson for seamen, maritime employers, and the lawyers who represent them.

Background

Adam Donahue worked as a Jones Act seaman for Gnots-Reserve, Inc. aboard the M/V WISE ONE. He alleges that on August 24, 2024, a cable wire unraveled while he lifted it and pinned his hand between the wire and the vessel. Doctors later diagnosed a hematoma on his right hand. Donahue sued for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure.

Gnots-Reserve fought back with three motions: (1) summary judgment on the maintenance and cure claim, (2) summary judgment on liability for negligence and unseaworthiness, and (3) leave to file a counterclaim against Donahue for recoupment of the maintenance and cure it had already paid him. The company argued that Donahue hid a pre-existing hand condition from it, both when he applied for the job and when he later blamed the vessel for his injury.

The Legal Standard

Before reaching the merits, the Court reiterated the familiar summary judgment standard: the movant wins only where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the law entitles it to judgment. The Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw every reasonable inference in that party's favor.

"A genuine issue of fact exists only ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

That standard set the stage for all three rulings. As explained below, the Court found genuine issues of fact on the first two motions and a pure legal defect on the third.

The Maintenance and Cure Claim Survives

Maintenance and cure is a no-fault benefit. An injured seaman gets it regardless of who caused the injury. Employers can, however, avoid the obligation under the McCorpen defense if the seaman lied about his medical history when he applied for the job.

“[W]here the [employer] requires a seaman to submit to a pre-hiring medical examination or interview and the seaman intentionally misrepresents or conceals material medical facts, the disclosure of which is plainly desired, then he is not entitled to an award of maintenance and cure.” McCorpen v. Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp., 396 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1968).

The defense has three elements. The employer must show that the seaman intentionally misrepresented or concealed medical facts, that those facts mattered (or where “material”) to the hiring decision; and that a connection exists between the concealed facts and the injury now at issue.

“[A]n employer must show that (1) the claimant intentionally misrepresented or concealed medical facts; (2) the non-disclosed facts were material to the employer’s decision to hire the claimant; and (3) a connection exists between the withheld information and the injury complained of in the lawsuit." Brown v. Parker Drilling Offshore Corp., 410 F.3d 166, 171 (5th Cir. 2005).

Gnots-Reserve pointed to an April 2023 emergency room visit, over a year before Donahue applied for the job, where doctors examined a mass on the same part of his right hand. An ultrasound described the mass as “most consistent with a complex abscess or phlegmon,” and a CT scan measured a 2.1 x 1.3 x 3.7 cm fluid collection near the base of his thumb. Doctors discharged him with antibiotics and a referral to hand surgery. When Donahue later filled out a pre-employment questionnaire in June 2024, he answered “no” to a question asking whether he had ever had “Cancer, Tumor, or Abnormal Growth.” Gnots-Reserve argued that the 2023 mass qualified as an abnormal growth and that Donahue should have disclosed it.

The Court disagreed that the record settled the question. Donahue plainly had a large mass on his hand, but no doctor ever diagnosed him with an “abnormal growth.” The 2023 records instead describe an abscess or infection. Because reasonable minds could differ on whether that earlier condition fits the term “abnormal growth” used on the questionnaire, the Court left this issue for the jury to decide. Summary judgment on the maintenance and cure claim failed as a result.

Takeaway for practitioners: Don’t assume any prior medical issue satisfies McCorpen’s concealment element. Courts may read disclosure questions narrowly. If the diagnosis on record doesn’t use the same words as the questionnaire, expect the concealment issue to go to a jury.

Causation Remains a Jury Question

Gnots-Reserve’s second motion attacked the negligence and unseaworthiness claims directly. It argued that Donahue’s hand injury pre-existed the shipboard accident and that he therefore could not prove the vessel caused it. The company relied on photos taken the day before the accident that already showed swelling, statements Donahue allegedly made to doctors that the injury developed gradually rather than from trauma, and his 2023 emergency room visit for the same hand.

The Jones Act, however, sets a forgiving causation bar.

“The standard of causation in Jones Act cases is not demanding.” Johnson v. Cenac Towing, Inc., 544 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 2008).

A seaman need only show that employer negligence played some part, even the slightest, in causing the injury. Unseaworthiness carries a slightly higher, but still seaman-friendly, standard: the unsafe condition must have played a substantial part in producing the injury.

Donahue countered Gnots-Reserve’s evidence with his own. His pre-employment physical, taken just three months before the accident, noted no mass or abnormality on his hand. He testified that he had no hand problems before the accident. Photos taken on the day of the accident showed new bruising absent from the prior day’s photos. And the vessel’s own captain confirmed that Donahue’s hand appeared injured right after the unwitnessed incident, prompting the captain to get him off the vessel for treatment.

Faced with two competing accounts of the same hand, the Court declined to pick a winner at summary judgment. It called Gnots-Reserve’s theory that Donahue lied about his hand’s condition a credibility determination for the jury, not the Court.

“[A] jury is entitled to make permissible inferences from unexplained events.” Johnson v. Horizon Offshore Contractors, Inc., No. 06-10689, 2008 WL 916256, at *4 (E.D. La. Mar. 31, 2008).

Because Donahue presented more than a “complete absence of proof” on causation, the motion failed.

No Counterclaim for Recoupment

Gnots-Reserve’s final move was the boldest: it asked the Court for leave to file a counterclaim against its own injured employee, seeking to recover the maintenance and cure benefits it had already paid him. The company framed the claim under Louisiana Civil Code article 2299, the state-law remedy for recovering a payment that was never owed, and also asked for attorney's fees, costs, and interest.

The Fifth Circuit has already closed the door on this argument: “[O]nce a shipowner pays maintenance and cure to the injured seaman, the payments can be recovered only by offset against the seaman’s damages award—not by an independent suit seeking affirmative recovery.” Boudreaux v. Transocean Deepwater, Inc., 721 F.3d 723, 728 (5th Cir. 2013).

A sister court in the same district put it more bluntly, criticizing a nearly identical counterclaim as pursuing “a remedy here that it must by now know is clearly unavailable to it.”

“Both of these species of claims against seamen have been disallowed in this District and Circuit, yet [the employer] persists in its attempt to counterclaim against [the seaman], without distinguishing any of the cases that disallowed these claims.” Crowe v. Marquette Transp. Co. Gulf-Inland, LLC, No. CV 14-1130, 2015 WL 13529959, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 10, 2015).

Because the caselaw simply does not allow an independent lawsuit for recoupment, the Court denied leave to file the counterclaim as a matter of law. The Court did, however, leave Gnots-Reserve one avenue: it may amend its Answer within fourteen days to assert an affirmative defense of set-off, which would let it offset any maintenance and cure it improperly paid against whatever judgment Donahue eventually wins. Takeaway: shipowners who suspect fraud in a maintenance and cure claim should plead setoff as a defense, not a standalone counterclaim.

Conclusion

Judge Milazzo denied all three of Gnots-Reserve’s motions and gave the company fourteen days to amend its Answer to assert an offset defense. The order leaves every core issue in the case for the jury: whether Donahue concealed a prior condition, whether the vessel caused his injury, and ultimately how much, if anything, he is owed. The decision is a reminder that maritime injury cases rarely end at summary judgment.

Read the full opinion here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-00527/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-00527-0.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 April 20, 2026. Readers should consult the full order and verify all citations before relying on this summary or citing it in any filing.