Two jobs. Not enough help. A denial a jury called willful.
When the injury came, the company didn't just dispute it. It cut off his medical care through outside counsel — and refused the MRI that finally found the damage.
Findings: unseaworthiness · unreasonable and willful-and-wanton denial of maintenance & cure · affirmed at the Fourteenth Court of Appeals
Firm’s attorney’s fees $148,823.65 · case expenses $49,459.31
Case summary
Deaver, a worker injured aboard a Noble Drilling vessel, won a unanimous verdict finding unseaworthiness and an unreasonable and willful-and-wanton denial of maintenance and cure, with 90% of the fault assigned to Noble. The $350,000 verdict grew to $413,641.18 with court-awarded appellate attorney's fees, and was affirmed on appeal.
One worker, two jobs, a brand-new rig.
Nathan Deaver was a top-pick floor hand assigned to the M/V Noble Tom Madden, a brand-new drillship Noble had launched out of a Korean shipyard. His principal responsibility was the rig floor. Running the shaker house — a structure two stories tall, twice the size of a courtroom — was a simultaneous additional duty. With adequate help, it was two manageable jobs. Without it, it was a stress injury waiting to happen.
The Tom Madden did not have the help. After about a week of working both jobs, with assistance arriving "a handful of times," Mr. Deaver reported his injury.
A boot, a termination letter, and an expert who never examined him.
An onshore physician put him in a sleeping boot that made the pain worse. Three months later, a termination letter — drafted not by Noble's claims department but by outside counsel — cut off his maintenance and cure. About a year after that, a foot-and-ankle specialist finally ordered the MRI no one else had ordered. It showed peroneal tendon damage.
Noble's risk adjuster forwarded that report to the company's testifying litigation expert — a physician who, by his own admission, had never examined the seaman — and the company refused cure again.
A duty "among the most pervasive" in the law.
Maintenance and cure is one of the oldest and strongest duties an employer owes a seaman. As the Supreme Court put it in Vaughan v. Atkinson, the obligation is among the most pervasive in American law and is "not to be narrowly confined." Ambiguities and doubts are resolved in the seaman's favor — not the company's. An employer that denies care does so against that thumb-on-the-scale standard.
The jury heard the sequence — the boot, the letter, the un-ordered MRI, the expert who never met him — and made three findings.
Three findings. Ninety percent. Affirmed.
After a five-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous $350,000 verdict with three liability findings: unseaworthiness, unreasonable denial of maintenance and cure, and willful-and-wanton denial of maintenance and cure — apportioning 90% of the fault to Noble. The verdict was affirmed on appeal in a brief the firm authored at the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. And because attorney’s fees are recoverable when a vessel owner willfully withholds maintenance and cure, the court awarded appellate attorney’s fees on top of the verdict — bringing the total recovery to $413,641.18.
The case is a study in how a maintenance-and-cure denial escalates. An unreasonable denial already exposes a company to compensatory damages and attorney's fees; a denial that crosses into willful and wanton opens the door to punitive damages. The more cynical the conduct — relying on an expert who never examined the seaman, routing the cutoff through outside counsel — the worse the exposure.
Legal lessons from this case
- Maintenance and cure is a no-fault duty owed to an injured seaman until maximum medical improvement.
- An unreasonable denial of maintenance and cure exposes an employer to compensatory damages and attorney's fees.
- A denial that is willful and wanton can support punitive damages on top of the benefits owed.
- Routing a benefits cutoff through an expert who never examined the seaman, or through outside counsel, can deepen the exposure.
Frequently asked questions
What happens if an employer wrongly denies maintenance and cure?
An unreasonable denial exposes the employer to the benefits owed plus compensatory damages and attorney's fees; a willful and wanton denial can add punitive damages.
Can I recover punitive damages for a maintenance-and-cure denial?
Yes. The Supreme Court has held punitive damages are available when an employer's failure to pay maintenance and cure is willful and wanton.
What does willful and wanton denial mean?
An arbitrary, bad-faith refusal to pay benefits the employer knew or should have known were owed, rather than a genuine, reasonable dispute.
What was the result in Deaver v. Noble Drilling?
A unanimous verdict found unseaworthiness and a willful-and-wanton denial of maintenance and cure, with 90% fault to Noble; the $350,000 verdict grew to $413,641.18 with appellate attorney's fees and was affirmed.
Was your maintenance and cure cut off?
Doyle Dennis Avery LLP represents injured seamen across Texas and the Gulf Coast — including those whose medical care or benefits were denied, delayed, or terminated. A case review costs nothing, and there is no obligation.
This page is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The result described — Deaver v. Noble Drilling, a unanimous jury verdict in the 269th District Court of Harris County, Texas, affirmed by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals — is a matter of public record. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome; every case is different and depends on its own facts. For advice about your case, speak with a qualified maritime attorney.
Doyle Dennis Avery LLP · Houston, Texas. This is attorney advertising.
