Vessel Cook — $1,100,000.00

When a Wet Galley Mat Became a Career-Ending Liftboat Hazard

Case Snapshot

A Louisiana liftboat cook suffered a disabling ankle injury when water trapped beneath an unsecured galley mat caused it to slide during routine cooking duties. What initially appeared to be an ankle sprain progressed into major Achilles surgery, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, psychological injuries, and the permanent loss of her maritime career.

• Client: Vessel Cook
• Residence: Louisiana
• Worksite: Liftboat galley at the Bollinger North yard on the Louisiana Gulf Coast
• Incident: Water beneath an unsecured galley mat caused the mat to slide while the cook turned during active galley duties
• Injuries: Right ankle sprain, Achilles tendinosis, right knee complaints, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, low-back pain, depression, anxiety, trauma-related symptoms, and somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain
• Surgery: Right Achilles tendon repair, flexor hallucis longus transfer, and Haglund’s deformity exostectomy in January 2021
• Legal Issues: Jones Act negligence, vessel unseaworthiness, unsafe workplace conditions, defective or unsecured galley equipment, loss of earning capacity, CRPS, and psychological damages
• Case Result: $1,100,000.00

Case Summary

A vessel cook working aboard a liftboat in Louisiana was injured when a water-soaked galley mat slid beneath her as she turned to respond to another crew member. The employer’s own incident report identified water beneath the mat as the cause of the accident and listed the galley mat as contributing equipment.

The injury changed every part of her life.

She underwent months of unsuccessful conservative treatment followed by a significant Achilles procedure. Instead of recovering, she developed severe postoperative pain and objective symptoms consistent with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, commonly known as CRPS. She could no longer walk normally, drive comfortably, perform household activities independently, or return to the vessel work she loved.

The Young Firm pursued her claims under the Jones Act and the general maritime law doctrine of unseaworthiness. The case required a detailed investigation into the vessel’s safety practices, galley equipment, incident records, medical treatment, psychological damages, vocational limitations, and future earning-capacity losses.

How an Unsecured Galley Mat Endangered a Vessel Cook

A liftboat galley is not an ordinary restaurant kitchen.

The cook is a member of the vessel’s crew. She holds maritime credentials, reports through the vessel’s chain of command, prepares meals for offshore personnel, and maintains the galley during long and physically demanding shifts.

Cooking, washing, mopping, carrying supplies, lifting hot trays, and responding to crew members often happen within the same compact space. Water is a foreseeable part of that environment. Because of that, controlling deck conditions, floor traction, and galley equipment is essential.

A mat placed in a vessel galley should provide stable footing. It should not slide across the deck when a crew member steps or turns on it.

When water is allowed to collect beneath an unsecured mat, the mat can become more dangerous than the wet deck itself. Instead of preventing a slip, it can move suddenly and take a worker’s feet out from under her.

That is what happened here.

Our client was not playing around, ignoring instructions, or performing work outside her assigned duties. She was doing her job. The company’s own records documented the unsafe condition that caused her injury.

What Happened in the Liftboat Galley

The accident occurred at approximately 4:00 p.m. while our client was performing routine galley duties aboard a liftboat at the Bollinger North yard.

She had swept and mopped the galley. She had removed a roast from the oven and placed it on the flat grill area. A deckhand then entered the galley and asked her for a container.

She turned.

That was all it took.

As she pivoted, her right foot came down on a galley mat that should have remained stable. Water had collected beneath it. The mat slid suddenly across the deck, causing her right ankle to roll outward while her knee absorbed part of the force.

She fell in her assigned workspace while performing the work she had been hired and trained to do.

The liftboat was dockside at the time. She was not injured because of rough seas or an unpredictable vessel movement. The dangerous condition was inside the galley, beneath equipment that the employer later identified as contributing to the accident.

Initial treatment consisted of ice and observation through the night. She was not immediately transferred to a shore-based medical facility. The following day, an industrial medicine provider diagnosed right ankle and knee sprains.

That early diagnosis did not reflect the full seriousness of the injury.

It marked the beginning of a medical journey that continued for years and never restored the life she had before the fall.

How the Vessel Company Challenged the Claim

As the case developed, the vessel company disputed the connection between the original galley accident and the client’s later Achilles condition, CRPS, psychological injuries, and inability to return to work.

First, the defense emphasized the early diagnosis of an ankle sprain. It questioned whether the later tendon pathology and chronic pain condition were truly related to the slip.

The defense medical examiner acknowledged that CRPS appeared after surgery. The company attempted to characterize the condition as a surgical complication rather than part of the medical chain that began with the vessel accident.

Second, the company pointed to portions of the client’s prior health history, including an earlier motor vehicle accident and unrelated complaints. It attempted to use those issues as alternative explanations for her chronic pain, depression, anxiety, and loss of function.

Third, the defense suggested that a cook working in a vessel galley should expect wet surfaces and personally manage the risk. That argument treated the sliding mat as an ordinary part of maritime work rather than a failure of the vessel’s equipment and safety practices.

The complete evidentiary record told a different story.

What the Employer’s Own Records Revealed

The employer’s incident report became one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case.

It stated that water beneath the galley mat caused the mat to slip from under the cook. It did not accuse her of rushing, ignoring a warning, or performing unauthorized work. It expressly identified the galley mat as equipment that contributed to the accident.

That report documented the mechanism of injury in the company’s own files: water beneath an unsecured mat in an active vessel galley.

Maritime attorney Tim Young and The Young Firm investigated beyond the initial incident form. The case involved review of the vessel’s rough logs, crew-orientation materials, toolbox-talk records, PAUSE documentation, safety manuals, personnel records, and other operational materials.

The investigation focused on the vessel’s floor-traction controls and whether the galley mat had been properly selected, secured, inspected, dried, removed when wet, or replaced before the incident.

The available evidence did not establish that the mat had been secured or that an effective system existed to prevent water from accumulating beneath it.

In a galley where cooking and sanitation duties overlap, that missing safety control mattered.

How the Injury Progressed Into CRPS

The medical history showed that this was not a minor sprain that quickly resolved.

Our client underwent conservative treatment, including an injection and other measures intended to restore function. Her symptoms continued.

In January 2021, she underwent a substantial surgical procedure that included:

• Achilles tendon repair
• Flexor hallucis longus transfer
• Removal of a Haglund’s deformity

The surgery did not restore her mobility.

Her pain became worse.

Medical examinations documented allodynia, temperature asymmetry, erythema, edema, and severely restricted range of motion. These were objective clinical findings associated with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.

CRPS can cause severe pain, abnormal sensitivity, swelling, skin-temperature changes, color changes, reduced mobility, and significant loss of function. It can transform an orthopedic injury into a chronic and disabling pain condition.

Lumbar sympathetic nerve blocks produced approximately 80 percent relief, but the improvement lasted only about 36 hours at a time. Her pain-management providers eventually recommended a spinal cord stimulator or dorsal root ganglion stimulation trial.

The accident also affected her mental health.

A psychological evaluation connected her major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, trauma-related symptoms, and somatic pain condition to the vessel injury, chronic pain, physical limitations, and loss of independence.

Before the accident, she loved working as a cook aboard vessels. After the accident, she did not return to that work—or to any work.

Why the Jones Act Applied

The Jones Act requires maritime employers to exercise reasonable care and provide seamen with a reasonably safe place to work.

A Jones Act claimant does not have to prove that an employer intended to cause an injury or acted with extreme recklessness. The worker must establish that employer negligence played some part, however slight, in producing the injury.

In this case, the central issue was whether the vessel operator failed to reasonably control a foreseeable galley hazard.

Water was a predictable result of cooking and sanitation duties. A mat placed in that environment should have been stable and suitable for its intended purpose. Allowing water to remain beneath an unsecured mat could create a foreseeable slipping hazard.

The employer’s own incident report identified that condition as the cause of the fall.

Our client was performing assigned vessel duties when she was injured. She was responding to another crew member while working inside the galley. Those facts supported the position that the accident arose from the condition of her workplace—not misconduct or an activity unrelated to her job.

Why the Galley Mat Supported an Unseaworthiness Claim

Under the general maritime law, a vessel and its equipment must be reasonably fit for their intended purposes.

A galley mat is supposed to improve traction and provide stable footing. A mat that slides across a wet deck can do the opposite. It can become the mechanism of a fall.

An unseaworthiness claim does not necessarily depend on proving that the vessel owner knew about the dangerous condition. The focus is whether an unseaworthy condition existed and whether that condition caused or substantially contributed to the injury.

Here, the employer’s incident form identified both the hazardous condition and the equipment involved. That evidence supported the position that the galley and its equipment were not reasonably fit for their intended use at the time of the accident.

The company’s comparative-fault argument also had to be evaluated against the actual circumstances.

Our client was performing assigned work. She was responding to a deckhand’s request. She was acting within the role she had been hired and certified to perform.

The vessel’s own records pointed toward a workplace hazard—not worker misconduct.

Why a Vessel Cook May Qualify as a Jones Act Seaman

A cook assigned to a vessel may qualify as a Jones Act seaman when the cook has a substantial connection to the vessel or an identifiable fleet and contributes to the vessel’s function or mission.

Food preparation aboard a vessel is maritime work when it supports the vessel and its crew.

A cook’s duties may include:

• Preparing meals for offshore workers
• Maintaining the galley
• Managing food supplies
• Cleaning cooking and dining areas
• Following vessel safety procedures
• Working under the captain or vessel officers

Seaman status depends on the worker’s actual duties, vessel assignment, and relationship to the vessel—not merely the worker’s job title.

Why the Dockside Location Did Not End the Maritime Claim

The liftboat was at the Bollinger North yard when the injury occurred.

That did not automatically eliminate Jones Act protection.

A vessel does not always have to be underway or in open water for maritime law to apply. The worker’s crew status, connection to the vessel, and assigned duties remain central to the analysis.

Our client was injured aboard the liftboat while performing work for the vessel. The dockside location did not change the maritime nature of her job or the condition that caused the accident.

Proving Lost Maritime Earning Capacity

The injuries prevented the client from returning to vessel cooking and maritime food-service work.

Vocational experts evaluated the effect of her lower-extremity restrictions, chronic pain, limited formal education, and work history. Her employment background was concentrated in cooking and vessel-based food service.

The evidence supported the conclusion that returning to her former occupation was not realistic.

Even if sedentary employment could be identified, it would likely produce a substantial reduction from the wages and benefits she earned at sea.

Economic experts evaluated her losses under total-disability and reduced-earning-capacity scenarios. The analysis included past earnings, future earning capacity, and employment benefits.

These damages were not limited to a temporary period of missed work. The case involved the loss of a maritime career and the financial security that career had provided.

Why the Louisiana Gulf Coast Location Mattered

This case arose within Louisiana’s Gulf Coast maritime industry, where liftboats, offshore service vessels, shipyards, and crew operations connect Port Fourchon, Houma, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and surrounding industrial communities.

Effective representation required familiarity with how Gulf Coast vessel operators:

• Train and supervise crews
• Maintain safety records
• Document incidents
• Manage galley equipment
• Defend Jones Act claims
• Select medical, vocational, and economic experts

The Young Firm has handled maritime injury claims throughout this region. We understand the New Orleans and Baton Rouge medical networks where injured crew members often receive orthopedic, pain-management, psychological, and rehabilitation care.

We also understand the federal courts, vessel practices, and expert issues involved in Louisiana maritime litigation.

Local knowledge affected the investigation, expert selection, record review, deposition strategy, and presentation of the connection between the galley accident and the client’s permanent disability.

Lessons for Injured Vessel Cooks and Crew Members

Preserve the Employer’s Incident Report

An incident report may contain the employer’s earliest explanation of what caused an accident.

Read any report carefully before signing it. Request a copy. Preserve photographs, text messages, witness names, medical instructions, and any information identifying the equipment involved.

Report Every Injury and Symptom

An ankle injury may also affect the knee, back, gait, and mental health. Report all symptoms to your medical providers and follow recommended treatment.

Incomplete reporting can allow a vessel company to argue that later conditions were unrelated.

CRPS After Surgery May Be Compensable

The fact that CRPS appears after surgery does not automatically end the connection to the original maritime accident.

When surgery was required because of the vessel injury, postoperative complications may form part of the claimed damages if supported by appropriate medical evidence.

Psychological Injuries Matter

Depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, and pain-related psychological conditions may result from chronic pain, physical limitations, lost employment, and reduced independence.

Those conditions should be properly evaluated and documented.

Early Investigation Protects Vessel Evidence

Mats may be discarded. Deck conditions may change. Surveillance footage may be overwritten. Witnesses may leave the company, and internal records may become harder to obtain.

Early investigation can help preserve the physical and documentary evidence needed to explain how the accident occurred.

The Young Firm’s Representation of Injured Maritime Workers

The Young Firm represents vessel cooks, deckhands, tankermen, engineers, crane operators, and other offshore and river crew members injured while performing maritime work.

Our cases focus on identifying unsafe vessel conditions, preserving evidence, developing medical and vocational proof, and pursuing the compensation available under the Jones Act and general maritime law.

Maritime attorney Tim Young has built his practice around cases in which a crew member was hurt while doing assigned work and the vessel company later attempted to minimize the dangerous condition, the injury, or the worker’s losses.

We do not charge an attorney’s fee unless we recover compensation for the client. We travel to injured maritime workers and personally develop the evidence needed to present their claims.

If you were injured as a cook, deckhand, or other crew member aboard a vessel, speak with a qualified Jones Act lawyer before equipment is removed, records are lost, or witnesses become difficult to locate.

Consultations with The Young Firm are free and carry no obligation.

Call us today to get things moving forward for you and your family.

Case details were compiled from litigation materials supplied for this page. The client’s identity and employer’s identity have been withheld to protect privacy. The case result will be added after the matter is resolved. This page provides general information and does not constitute legal advice for any specific situation.