Morrison Mahoney Partner Ted Murphy recently secured two wins for our client, the prime designer and builder of the nation’s submarine fleet.
In the most recent case, a federal appellate court in Washington affirmed a defense verdict Ted obtained last year in a death case involving an alleged asbestos-related small bowel cancer. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial judge made reversible errors of law surrounding the admission and evaluation of complex and competing testimony from four medical experts.
The second case followed a hard-fought trial concerning the responsible employer doctrine under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Act. Plaintiff sustained an uncontested knee injury many years ago while working for our client as a shipfitter on a nuclear-powered submarine under construction. He eventually returned to work after receiving medical and lost time benefits from our client. Several years later, he left its employ and joined another defense contractor, performing similar work on aircraft carriers in Virginia.
One year into that employment, plaintiff sustained an aggravation injury to the same knee due to repetitive trauma brought on by extensive walking and climbing on the job. He underwent knee replacement surgery, but could not return to work in his trade thereafter. He brought a case under the Act against his last employer and received a low six-figure settlement. He then turned his aim back on our client, arguing that the more serious injury to his knee occurred while he was in its employ, setting the stage for the need for knee replacement and resulting permanent and total disability. Plaintiff relied on the Second Circuit’s enigmatic ruling in New Haven Terminal v. Lake that blurred the usual rule in other circuits that the last maritime employer is solely liable for disability flowing from an injury, regardless of its magnitude in relation to previous injuries.
The judge (sitting in the First Circuit) adopted Lake, but Ted aggressively impeached plaintiff and his medical expert with pleadings, testimony, and medical records that squarely implicated only the subsequent employer during the litigation against it. The judge found that plaintiff’s credibility was poor and denied the claim against our client.
