Tankerman — $600,000.00

Case Snapshot

• Client: Tankerman
• Worksite: Motor vessel operating in Louisiana’s river and lock-towing environment
• Incident Date: March 22, 2019
• Incident Type: High-force line retrieval involving a waterlogged rope and an approximately 18-foot spike pole
• Injuries: L4-5 lumbar disc herniation, multilevel lumbar disc bulges, left-leg radiculopathy, chronic low-back pain, and numbness in the anterior left thigh
• Treatment: Physical therapy, injections, L4-5 lumbar fusion, medial branch block, radiofrequency ablation, and continuing pain management
• Primary Legal Issues: Jones Act negligence, vessel unseaworthiness, unsafe work method, inadequate training, lack of a documented task-specific risk assessment, maintenance and cure, and loss of earning capacity
• Case Result: [INSERT APPROVED RESULT OR CONFIDENTIAL-RESOLUTION LANGUAGE]
• Legal Representation: The Young Firm, Jones Act back injury lawyers representing maritime workers in New Orleans, throughout Louisiana, and across the Gulf Coast

A Routine Line-Handling Assignment Caused a Career-Ending Back Injury

A Louisiana river tankerman suffered a serious lumbar injury while retrieving a waterlogged rope aboard a working vessel. The assignment appeared routine. A bank line had to be brought aboard while the vessel waited for clearance to enter a lock.

The way the task was performed, however, placed extreme force on one crew member’s lower back.

Our client was required to use an approximately 18-foot spike pole to hook a three-inch rope and lift it upward over the vessel’s bow. The rope was approximately 150 feet long and saturated with river water. A human-factors expert retained in the case estimated that the task required more than 100 pounds of force and may have approached 120 pounds.

As our client pulled upward, the spike pole bent under the load. He felt a pop in his lower back, lost sensation in his legs, and collapsed onto the deck.

He could not stand and complete the assignment. He required emergency medical attention and later underwent extensive treatment, including an L4-5 lumbar fusion. Although surgery improved some of his early leg symptoms, it did not eliminate his chronic low-back pain.

The injury ultimately prevented him from returning to the physically demanding maritime work that had supported him and his family.

The Young Firm investigated the incident under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The evidence raised critical questions about the employer’s work method, training practices, vessel staffing, safety procedures, and failure to document a task-specific risk assessment for the line-retrieval assignment.

The Injured Tankerman Was Performing the Work He Had Been Assigned

River tankermen and deckhands perform difficult work in demanding conditions. They handle heavy lines, transfer fuel, secure equipment, maintain vessel decks, and support towing and lock operations in darkness, heat, rain, and rapidly changing river conditions.

Our client had spent years working in Louisiana’s river-towing and fuel-barge industry. He held a United States Coast Guard tankerman credential and worked a 14-days-on and 7-days-off schedule. He regularly performed overtime and completed the heavy physical work expected of an experienced vessel crew member.

On March 22, 2019, he was not attempting a stunt or acting outside his assigned duties. He was using the equipment supplied by the employer and following the work method used aboard the vessel.

He was told to bring in a line.

That task changed the course of his life.

The incident began a medical journey involving diagnostic imaging, conservative treatment, spinal surgery, injections, pain-management procedures, and a functional capacity evaluation. It also ended the vessel-based career he had spent years building.

What Went Wrong on the Vessel’s Deck

The vessel was waiting to enter a Louisiana lock when the crew needed to retrieve a rope connected to the bank. Bringing lines aboard is a standard part of river-towing work, but a routine assignment can still become unreasonably dangerous when the employer fails to evaluate the forces involved.

Our client used the spike pole to hook the waterlogged rope and raise it over the bow. The saturated line created substantial dead weight and resistance.

The length of the pole also affected the mechanics of the task. A worker using a long pole to lift a heavy load does not experience only the weight of the rope. The worker must also control the pole, stabilize his body, maintain footing on the vessel, and generate enough upward force to move the line over the bow.

The pole visibly bent during the effort. That deformation provided physical evidence of the magnitude of the load.

At the same moment, our client felt a sudden pop in his lumbar spine. He lost feeling in his legs and fell onto the deck. He called for help and could not continue working.

MRI imaging later showed an L4-5 disc herniation and multilevel lumbar disc bulges. He developed radiating pain, numbness in his left thigh, left-leg symptoms, and chronic low-back pain.

Physical therapy, injections, and other conservative measures did not restore him to his pre-injury condition. On September 27, 2019, approximately six months after the incident, his surgeon performed an L4-5 lumbar fusion.

The surgery improved part of his severe leg pain, but significant back pain remained. He later underwent a medial branch block in August 2021 and radiofrequency ablation at L3-4 in January 2022. Continuing treatment remained necessary because fusion surgery did not eliminate the long-term effects of the injury.

What the Employer’s Safety Records Revealed

A central issue in the case was whether the employer had adequately evaluated and controlled the risks associated with the line-retrieval method.

The company’s safety materials recognized that marine work can involve substantial manual-force hazards. Its safety management system called for systematic risk assessments, and its training matrix identified back-safety instruction as required training for tankermen.

The Young Firm obtained and examined those records. We reviewed the employer’s safety policies, analyzed the training materials, questioned vessel personnel, and retained a human-factors expert to evaluate the task.

The employer could not produce a documented risk assessment addressing the specific line-retrieval method that injured our client.

There was no documented analysis of:

• The weight of the saturated rope
• The force required to raise the line over the bow
• Whether one crew member could safely complete the task
• Whether a second crew member should assist
• Whether mechanical equipment could reduce the load
• Whether the spike pole was suitable for the assignment
• How the worker should position his body while lifting
• Whether a safer alternative method was available

The company also could not produce documentation showing that our client had received the formal back-safety training identified in its training matrix.

These were not minor recordkeeping issues. A task-specific risk assessment is intended to identify foreseeable hazards before a worker is injured. Had the employer properly evaluated the assignment, it could have considered additional manpower, mechanical assistance, different equipment, or another method for bringing the line aboard.

The case demonstrated the difference between maintaining a safety program on paper and implementing that program during actual vessel operations.

Jones Act Negligence and an Unsafe Method of Work

The Jones Act requires maritime employers to provide seamen with a reasonably safe place to work. That duty can include providing adequate training, suitable equipment, sufficient assistance, and a reasonably safe method for performing assigned tasks.

A Jones Act employer does not have to intend to injure a worker before it can be held responsible. An injured seaman may have a claim when the employer’s negligence played a part in causing the injury.

The evidence in this case supported allegations that the employer failed to:

• Evaluate the force required to retrieve the saturated line
• Develop a task-specific safe-work procedure
• Provide adequate back-safety training
• Supply mechanical assistance
• Assign another crew member to help control the load
• Use equipment suited to the physical demands of the task
• Protect the worker from a foreseeable lifting hazard

Our client was not injured because he abandoned an established safe procedure. The evidence indicated that he was performing the assignment in the customary manner used aboard the vessel.

The work method itself was the problem.

Vessel Unseaworthiness

Unseaworthiness is a separate claim under general maritime law. A vessel owner must provide a vessel, crew, equipment, and operational methods that are reasonably fit for their intended purposes.

A vessel does not become unseaworthy only when its engine fails or its hull is damaged. An unsafe method of operation, inadequate equipment, or insufficient crew support may also create an unseaworthy condition.

Here, the relevant circumstances included:

• One worker performing the assignment
• An approximately 18-foot spike pole
• A waterlogged three-inch rope
• A force requirement exceeding 100 pounds
• No documented mechanical assistance
• No additional crew member helping control the line
• No documented task-specific risk assessment

Together, those facts supported the argument that the vessel’s equipment, staffing, and method of operation were not reasonably fit for the line-retrieval task.

Maintenance and Cure

The Young Firm also evaluated and preserved our client’s maintenance-and-cure rights.

Maintenance and cure generally requires a maritime employer to provide an injured seaman with basic living support and necessary medical care while the worker recovers from an illness or injury that arose during service to the vessel.

Maintenance and cure is different from a Jones Act negligence claim. A seaman may be entitled to these benefits without proving that the employer caused the accident.

Disputes frequently arise over the amount of maintenance, the medical treatment considered necessary, whether the worker has reached maximum medical improvement, and whether benefits were stopped too early.

The Employer’s Defense Arguments

The defense attempted to reduce the value of the claim by challenging our client’s medical needs, future treatment costs, and loss of earning capacity.

Defense experts emphasized his history of earlier back symptoms. They also argued that his future medical needs should be valued substantially lower than the projections offered on his behalf.

A prior back condition, however, does not automatically defeat a Jones Act injury claim. The relevant question is whether the vessel incident aggravated, accelerated, or materially worsened the worker’s condition.

Before March 22, 2019, our client was capable of performing demanding maritime work. After the line-retrieval incident, he required lumbar fusion surgery and could no longer meet the physical requirements of river-towing employment.

The defense also suggested that he might be capable of light or light-medium work. That assumption became central to the dispute over lost earnings.

But identifying hypothetical light-duty employment does not necessarily make an injured tankerman financially whole. Our client’s credentials, work history, and earning potential were tied to vessel operations, fuel transfers, line handling, and other physically demanding maritime duties.

A lower-paying shore job would not replace the career he lost.

Proving the Long-Term Economic Loss

The injury affected more than our client’s ability to lift a rope. It changed his long-term earning capacity.

Vocational and economic evidence was necessary to evaluate:

• His pre-injury maritime earnings
• Overtime and work rotation
• The value of his tankerman credential
• His physical restrictions
• Whether he could return to vessel employment
• The wages available in realistic alternative occupations
• The cost of future medical treatment
• The duration of his remaining work life

A functional capacity evaluation documented measurable physical limitations and consistent effort. The evaluation helped answer defense suggestions that he could simply return to river work or move into another job without a significant financial loss.

For a maritime worker whose career depends on strength, balance, endurance, and repetitive physical activity, permanent lumbar restrictions can eliminate an entire category of employment.

Why the Louisiana Maritime Setting Mattered

The case arose within Louisiana’s river and lock-towing industry and was filed in New Orleans. The regional setting was important because the claim involved local vessel operations, maritime employment, medical treatment, and the economic consequences of losing a river-based career.

Louisiana courts and juries have long been familiar with tugboats, barges, tankermen, deckhands, fuel-transfer operations, and the physical demands of working on navigable waterways.

The Young Firm represents injured maritime workers from its New Orleans office. The firm handles Jones Act and general maritime law claims involving workers from New Orleans, Metairie, Covington, Jefferson Parish, Orleans Parish, St. Tammany Parish, and communities throughout Louisiana and the Gulf Coast.

Understanding the local maritime industry matters when an employer attempts to compare a skilled tankerman’s vessel career with an undefined light-duty position on shore.

Lessons for Other Injured Maritime Workers

Routine vessel work can still be unsafe

An assignment does not become safe simply because crews perform it regularly. Line handling can expose workers to substantial force, unstable footing, awkward body mechanics, and heavy equipment.

The employer’s own records may support the claim

Safety manuals, training matrices, risk-assessment procedures, and job-safety analyses can show what the employer knew and what it promised to do.

Missing safety documentation matters

When a company cannot produce a task-specific risk assessment or required training record, that absence may help explain how a foreseeable hazard was allowed to continue.

A prior back condition does not necessarily prevent recovery

A worker may still have a claim when a vessel accident aggravates or transforms an earlier condition into a disabling injury.

Surgery may not end the treatment

Lumbar fusion can improve certain symptoms without resolving chronic pain. Future damages should account for continuing care, physical limitations, and the possibility of additional procedures.

Evidence should be preserved quickly

Training records, safety manuals, photographs, witness statements, vessel logs, equipment records, and electronic communications can become harder to obtain as time passes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a deckhand or tankerman file a Jones Act claim for a back injury?

A deckhand, tankerman, or other qualifying seaman may have a Jones Act claim when employer negligence contributed to a back injury. Potential negligence may include unsafe work methods, inadequate training, insufficient crew assistance, or unsuitable equipment.

Does a pre-existing back condition prevent a Jones Act case?

Not necessarily. A maritime worker may still recover damages if a vessel incident aggravated, accelerated, or materially worsened an existing back condition.

Can an unsafe work method make a vessel unseaworthy?

Yes. Unseaworthiness may involve more than defective physical equipment. An inadequate crew, unsafe operational method, or equipment that is not reasonably fit for the assigned task may support an unseaworthiness claim.

What compensation may be available after a serious maritime back injury?

Depending on the circumstances, recoverable damages may include medical expenses, lost wages, diminished earning capacity, pain and suffering, disability, future medical care, and other losses. Maintenance-and-cure benefits may also be available.

Why is a task-specific risk assessment important?

A task-specific risk assessment identifies the hazards associated with a particular assignment and evaluates ways to control them. For heavy line handling, that may include rope weight, water saturation, body positioning, equipment limitations, crew staffing, and mechanical assistance.

Speak With a Louisiana Jones Act Back Injury Lawyer

The Young Firm represents tankermen, deckhands, tugboat workers, barge crew members, offshore personnel, and other seamen injured in Louisiana and throughout the Gulf Coast.

Our practice focuses on Jones Act negligence, vessel unseaworthiness, maintenance-and-cure disputes, serious maritime injuries, and the long-term financial consequences of losing a vessel-based career.

Maritime injury claims are governed by laws and deadlines that differ from ordinary workers’ compensation cases. Vessel employers and insurers may begin investigating immediately after an accident.

Reach out today. We can talk through what happened and what your options are.

The Young Firm — Maritime Trial Attorneys — New Orleans, Louisiana