CARNIVAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DIGNO RIVERA MENDOZA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Carnival Corporation appeals a bench trial judgment awarding compensatory damages to its former seaman for maintenance and cure after the trial court found Carnival unreasonably denied payment for back surgery. The appellate court affirms the finding of unreasonable denial and resulting liability but reverses the award for future pain and suffering due to insufficient evidentiary support.
The trial court correctly found Carnival's denial of maintenance and cure was unreasonable and supported by competent and substantial evidence, making Carnival liable for compensatory damages. However, the award for future pain and suffering lacked evidentiary support and was reversed without prejudice. The punitive damages issue became moot when the appellee withdrew that claim at trial.
[1] A shipowner's unreasonable denial of maintenance and cure payments renders it liable for those payments and for compensatory damages.
[2] Findings of fact by a trial judge in a non-jury proceeding will not be set aside on review unless totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Findings of fact by a trial judge in a non-jury proceeding will not be set aside on review unless totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.”
Establishes the standard of review for trial court factual findings, which supported affirming the unreasonableness determination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDigno Rivera Mendoza, a seaman aboard a Carnival vessel, injured his back while working. Carnival refused to pay for Mendoza's back surgery and termin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Future Pain And Suffering cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”) appeals a final judgment awarding its former seaman, Digno Rivera Mendoza, compensatory damages on his maintenance and cure claim after a bench trial. The damages were awarded based upon the trial court’s conclusion that Carnival had unreasonably refused payment for Mendoza’s back surgery. Mendoza injured his back while working aboard a Carnival vessel. On this appeal, Carnival raises three issues, one of which warrants a reversal. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.
First, Carnival argues that the trial court erred in its determination that Carnival was unreasonable in failing to provide back surgery to Mendoza and in terminating his maintenance and cure. We disagree. There is ample competent and substantial record evidence to support the trial court’s factual determination on this issue. See LRU, L.L.C. v. Kosmic of Key West, Inc., 792 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(quoting Lee v. Lee, 563 So. 2d 754, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(“Findings of fact by a trial judge in a non-jury proceeding will not be set aside on review unless totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.”)); Acosta v. Creative Group Investments, 790 So. 2d 518, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(same). Carnival’s unreasonable denial of maintenance and cure rendered it liable to Mendoza for compensatory damages. See Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Zareno, 712 So. 2d 791, 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(if shipowner unreasonably rejects a claim for maintenance and cure payments it is liable not only for said payments but also for compensatory damages).
Carnival next assails the trial court’s award of compensatory damages for Mendoza’s future pain and suffering, asserting that this award was error because there was absolutely no evidence to support these damages. We agree that at this juncture of the proceeding, the record evidence does not support an award of compensatory damages for future pain and suffering. Therefore, we reverse this award without prejudice to litigate this issue during the remaining proceedings.
Finally, Carnival argues that the trial court erred when it permitted Mendoza to present evidence at trial in support of a punitive damages claim when no such claim had been pled. Given the fact, however, that the claim for punitive damages was withdrawn by the appellee at trial, this issue has become entirely moot. Accordingly, we decline to address it.
For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LEE v. LEE, 563 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Gregorio Zareno, 712 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- R.G. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 792 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- LRU, L.L.C. v. Kosmic OF KEY W., Inc., 792 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Acosta v. Creative Grp. Invs., Inc., 790 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- State v. Miraldo Chavez, 790 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)