Adriatic Mrne v. Harrington, No. 20-30226 (5th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-30226 Document: 00515724065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 28, 2021 No. 20-30226 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Adriatic Marine, L.L.C., Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Roland Harrington, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:19-CV-2440 Before Wiener, Costa, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* We affirm, for essentially the reasons given in the reported opinions of the district court. See Adriatic Marine, LLC v. Harrington, 446 F. Supp. 3d 126 (E.D. La. 2020); Adriatic Marine, LLC v. Harrington, 442 F. Supp. 3d 929 (E.D. La. 2020). First, the record contains no evidence establishing the causation element for either Harrington’s Jones Act negligence claim or his * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-30226 Document: 00515724065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2021 No. 20-30226 unseaworthiness claim. See Jones v. United States, 936 F.3d 318, 321–24 (5th Cir. 2019). Second, as to Harrington’s maintenance and cure claim, the record contains uncontradicted evidence that Harrington did not disclose his medical history of back injury when asked to do so on Adriatic Marine’s preemployment questionnaire. It is legally irrelevant whether Harrington had subjective intent to deceive or whether his subsequent medical history indicated his back was not injured. See Brown v. Parker Drilling Offshore Corp., 410 F.3d 166, 171–76 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Adriatic Marine is entitled to summary judgment for all of Harrington’s claims. As a result, the arguments related to Harrington’s expert evidence are moot, and we do not address them. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.