Case at a glance
- Recovery: Confidential Settlement
- Injury: Back injury requiring two surgeries
- Practice: Maritime Injury Law
- Attorney: Brian Beckcom
Heavy wire work on the Mississippi River
Chase worked as a deckhand aboard a harbor tug that assembled groups of barges on the Mississippi River near Columbus, Kentucky. His job included connecting the tug to a barge, releasing the barge from the fleet and securing it into the tow being built.
The work involved wire weighing approximately 100 to 120 pounds and ratchets weighing another 60 to 70 pounds. During his October 2012 assignment, Chase worked 12-hour shifts for two weeks. He testified that he frequently pulled and secured the wires without assistance from the other deckhand.
Chase did not describe a single moment when a wire snapped or a piece of equipment failed. His claim focused on the repeated strain of doing the work without sufficient help.
A back injury that led to two operations
Chase sought medical care the day after he left the vessel. He later underwent two back surgeries.
His employer disputed whether the injury happened aboard the boat. That made the connection between his work and his medical condition a central issue. The case required more than a description of a physically demanding job: it required evidence addressing how that work could have caused his injury.
Building the evidence around the work itself
Brian and the VB Attorneys team presented medical and marine-safety evidence supporting Chase’s claim. His doctors offered opinions connecting the injury to his work during the voyage.
A marine-safety expert addressed the repeated lifting and pulling involved in laying wires. He concluded that assistance from another deckhand would likely have reduced the repeated strain and could have prevented the injury.
Chase also testified that he had raised the lack of assistance with his captain. The record included evidence that deckhands worked in teams and that the captain acknowledged Chase should receive help. The employer disputed the claim that the work was performed unsafely.
Defeating the attempt to end the case before trial
The employer asked the federal court to enter summary judgment against Chase. It argued, among other things, that he could not establish an injury aboard the vessel and that handling wire was routine deckhand work.
Brian and the VB Attorneys team opposed that motion with the medical testimony, the marine-safety opinion and the evidence about assistance on the vessel. The court found that the evidence raised disputed questions that could not be resolved against Chase without a trial.
The court also rejected the idea that the ability of one deckhand to handle a wire automatically answered whether it was safe to have Chase do the work alone. It denied the employer’s motion, allowing his Jones Act, unseaworthiness and maintenance-and-cure claims to continue.
A confidential settlement
Chase’s case later resolved through a confidential settlement.
For Chase, the case involved both the medical consequences of a back injury and a dispute over how ordinary deck work had been assigned and performed. Brian and the VB Attorneys team developed evidence addressing those questions and kept his claims moving after the employer sought to end them before trial.
Questions about the case
Related legal help
Learn about maritime injury claims or read another deckhand case involving repetitive lifting.
To discuss a maritime injury, call 877-724-7800 for a free consultation.
Every case is different. Prior results depend on the facts of the individual case and do not guarantee a similar outcome.