Adriatic Mrne v. Harrington ( 2021 )

Case: 20-30226 Document: 00515724065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 28, 2021
No. 20-30226
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Adriatic Marine, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Roland Harrington,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:19-CV-2440
Before Wiener, Costa, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
We affirm, for essentially the reasons given in the reported opinions
of the district court. See Adriatic Marine, LLC v. Harrington, 446 F. Supp. 3d
126 (E.D. La. 2020); Adriatic Marine, LLC v. Harrington, 442 F. Supp. 3d
929 (E.D. La. 2020). First, the record contains no evidence establishing the
causation element for either Harrington’s Jones Act negligence claim or his
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30226 Document: 00515724065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2021
No. 20-30226
unseaworthiness claim. See Jones v. United States, 936 F.3d 318, 321–24 (5th
Cir. 2019). Second, as to Harrington’s maintenance and cure claim, the
record contains uncontradicted evidence that Harrington did not disclose his
medical history of back injury when asked to do so on Adriatic Marine’s pre-
employment questionnaire. It is legally irrelevant whether Harrington had
subjective intent to deceive or whether his subsequent medical history
indicated his back was not injured. See Brown v. Parker Drilling Offshore Corp.,
410 F.3d 166, 171–76 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Adriatic Marine is entitled
to summary judgment for all of Harrington’s claims.
As a result, the arguments related to Harrington’s expert evidence are
moot, and we do not address them.
AFFIRMED.
2