Abraham Char, Appellant V. American Seafoods, Inc., Respondent

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
No. 72160-7-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	March 7, 2016
ABRAHAM CHAR,
Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN SEAFOODS, INC.,
Respondent.
at 	^>—h
« 	"VI!
o
Leach, J. — Abraham Char appeals the dismissal by summary judgment
of his lawsuit against American Seafoods Company LLC.1 	Because Char failed
to present any evidence in opposition to American's amply supported summary
judgment motion, we affirm the trial court.
Background
Four different times Abraham Char suffered injuries while working 	on
American's vessels. 	Each time he filed a claim and received maintenance and
cure until his treating doctors determined that he had reached maximum medical
improvement.
On March 12, 2010, Char injured his neck while working aboard the F/T
Ocean Rover. This injury occurred while Char assisted independent contractors
1 There is no company named "American Seafoods, Inc." 	The correct
name is "American Seafoods Company LLC."

No. 72160-7-1/2
aboard the ship who asked for his help. 	The task fell outside the scope of Char's
regular job duties as a fire watch aboard the vessel.
The doctor who evaluated Char diagnosed him with neck contusion. 	Char
received treatment and physical therapy between March and May 2010, when he
was released to return to fishing without restrictions. 	When Char asked to see
another doctor, American sent him to an orthopedist, Dr. Peterson. 	Dr. Peterson
diagnosed him with a neck contusion or sprain and prescribed additional physical
therapy. 	Dr. Peterson released Char back to work and wrote in his chart note
that 	he "expect[s] this will 	quiet down and 	he will 	not have any 	long term
sequelae from this."
After Char's job aboard the F/T Ocean Rover ended on May 11, 2010, he
returned to his home in Virginia for more treatment. 	On May 20, 2010, he saw a
chiropractor, Dr. Brill, for his neck. 	Dr. Brill also diagnosed a neck sprain or
strain and recommended chiropractic treatment. 	Char received this treatment in
May and June 2010. 	On June 30, Char received an MRI (magnetic resonance
imaging), which was interpreted as normal. 	Dr. Brill released Char to return to
work 	without 	restrictions 	as 	of 	June 	30, 	2010, 	with 	no 	further 	treatment
prescribed.
Char returned to work aboard the Ffi" American Dynasty. 	On September
16, 2010, he injured his back while lifting boxes during an offload. 	Char had
regularly been assigned the duty of offloading. 	The ship supervisors teach the
proper way to lift boxes during orientation. 	Char did not blame American for this

No. 72160-7-1/3
injury. 	When 	Char reported the injury, American sent him to 	Dr. Smith for
evaluation. 	Dr. Smith diagnosed a back strain but found Char fit for modified
work. 	The doctor stated in his chart note that once the spasm settled down,
Char's symptoms should resolve. 	Char was given a 	back brace to use and
directed to treat with ice and medication.
On October 31, 2010, Char reported continuing back pain and American
sent him to the hospital. 	His emergency room (ER) exam showed no muscle
spasm or tenderness, full range of motion, and no pain with motion. 	The ER
physician 	diagnosed 	him 	with 	a 	back 	strain 	and 	recommended 	muscle
strengthening exercises and rest.
Char returned to work on the F/T Amencan Dynasty. 	He then worked on
the F/T American 	Triumph, then on the F/T Northern Jaeger. 	Char worked
aboard the F/T Northern Jaeger for the entire 2011 season, from January 6 to
April 8. 	He reported no problem with his back during this period.
On April 14, 2011, Char requested a doctor's appointment for back and
knee pain. 	He reported injuries to his knees sustained on October 15, 2010.
American again sent him to Dr. Peterson. 	Dr. Peterson found Char's range of
motion, neurologic exam, and back x-rays normal. 	He diagnosed a back sprain
and 	referred 	Char to 	physical therapy. 	Dr. 	Peterson 	also evaluated Char's
knees. 	He diagnosed prepatellar bursitis of the left knee. Although he concluded
that this condition required no treatment, because Char was attending physical

No. 72160-7-1/4
therapy for his back, he prescribed it for Char's knees too. 	He released Char to
return to work without restriction.
On August 3, 2011, Char returned to work on the F/T Northern Jaeger.
On September 29, 2011, at the end of a trip, he reported that he had developed
back pain during the trip. American sent Char to a clinic in Dutch Harbor, Alaska.
A clinic doctor diagnosed a back sprain and released Char to modified duty with
lifting restrictions. 	Rather than return Char to work, American returned him to
Seattle to be seen by Dr. Peterson. 	Dr. Peterson found a normal range of motion
and no objective sign of injury. 	He diagnosed a chronic back strain and noted in
his chart that he could offer no medical treatment that would improve or cure
Char's 	back 	condition. 	He 	released 	Char 	to 	modified 	work 	with 	a 	lifting
restriction. 	Dr. Peterson saw Char again two weeks later and released him to
return to work without any restriction.
Char requested 	a 	second 	opinion. 	American 	sent Char to 	a 	second
orthopedist, Dr. Seligman. 	Dr. Seligman reported a normal exam and diagnosed
a back strain. 	He concluded that Char did not need any further diagnostic testing
or treatment. 	He released Char to work without any restriction.
Char returned to Dr. Peterson on November 9, 2011. 	He again told Char
that there was no treatment for his back and that if he could not work on a fishing
boat without pain, he needed to look for other work.
American paid for all known bills for Char's medical appointments and
treatment for the four different injuries he reported.

No. 72160-7-1/5
Char filed this lawsuit against American, asserting claims for negligence,
unseaworthiness, 	and 	maintenance and cure. 	American asked for summary
judgment and supported its request with declarations, medical records, Char's
deposition transcript, and other records. 	Char did not submit any responsive
evidence. 	The trial court dismissed Char's lawsuit. 	He appeals.
Analysis
Char 	challenges 	the 	trial 	court's 	legal 	conclusions 	about American's
alleged 	negligence, 	the 	seaworthiness 	of 	its 	vessels, 	and 	his 	continued
entitlement to maintenance and cure. 	American Seafood Company responds
that Char did not submit competent evidence to support an essential element of
each claim and that the record shows no genuine issues as to any material fact.
As a preliminary matter, American also challenges the sufficiency of Char's brief
to present any issue for review.
Issues Considered on Appellate Review
The same rules of procedure that bind 	an attorney apply to a 	pro se
litigant.2 	RAP 10.3 requires that an appellate brief supply "argument in support of
the issues presented for review, 	together with citations to legal authority and
references to relevant parts of the record."3 	We do not consider conclusory
2 Westberq v. All-Purpose Structures, Inc.. 86 Wn. App. 405, 411, 936
P.2d 1175(1997).
3 RAP 10.3(a)(6); In re Estate of Lint, 135 Wn.2d 518, 532, 957 P.2d 755
(1998).
-5-

No. 72160-7-1/6
arguments that are unsupported by citation to authority.4 	But RAP 1.2(a) allows
an appellate court to exercise its discretion to consider cases and issues on their
merits despite one or more technical flaws in a litigant's compliance with the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.5 	In a case "where the nature of the appeal is clear
and the relevant issues are argued in the body of the brief and citations are
supplied so that the court is not greatly inconvenienced and the respondent is not
prejudiced," the court should exercise its discretion to consider the merits of the
case or issue.6
Char's pro se briefing does not include any assignments of error, legal
citations, or citations to any evidence in the record supporting his conclusory
arguments. 	But it does provide sufficient argument to allow American to identify
the issues and respond. 	Thus, exercising our RAP 1.2 discretion, we address
the merits of Char's appeal.
However, when reviewing a summary judgment decision, this court only
considers evidence and issues called to the attention of the trial court.7 	Char
makes the following arguments for the first time on appeal: 	(1) American did not
pay money promised to him on October 24, 2011; (2) American fired him before
his contract ended; (3) American discriminated against him based on his race; (4)
American owes him wages for the past four years based on his contract; and (5)
4 Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.. 170 Wn. App. 614, 629, 285 P.3d 187
(2012).
5 State v. Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315, 323, 893 P.2d 629 (1995).
6 Olson, 126Wn.2dat323.
7 RAP 9.12.

No. 72160-7-1/7
American negligently caused his first back injury. 	In his reply brief, Char further
alleged that American pressured his doctors to declare he reached maximum
medical cure. 	Because Char did not properly raise these arguments in the trial
court, we decline to consider them.8
Standard of Review for Summary Judgment
This 	court 	reviews 	a 	summary judgment order de 	novo.9 	Summary
judgment is proper if, after viewing all of the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the record shows no genuine
issues as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.10
The moving party bears the initial burden of showing an absence of any
genuine issue of material fact.11 	Alternatively, a defendant can demonstrate that
the plaintiff lacks competent evidence to support an essential element of the
claim.12 	Once the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff
"'to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at
8 RAP 9.12; see Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Boselv, 118Wn.2d 801,
809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992); Sourakli v. Kvriakos. Inc.. 144 Wn. App. 501, 509, 182
P.3d 985 (2008).
9 Silverhawk, LLC v. KevBank Nat'l Ass'n. 165 Wn. App. 258, 264, 268
P.3d 958 (2011).
10 CR 56(c); Lvbbert v. Grant County. 141 Wn.2d 29, 34, 1 P.3d 1124
(2000).
11 Sevbold v. Neu, 105 Wn. App. 666, 677, 19 P.3d 1068 (2001).
12 Sevbold, 105 Wn. App. at 676; Fisher v. Aldi Tire, Inc., 78 Wn. App.
902, 906, 902 P.2d 166 (1995); Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216, 225,
770P.2d 182(1989).

No. 72160-7-1/8
trial.'"13 	The plaintiff may 	not simply rely on the allegations 	in the existing
pleadings or on speculative and argumentative assertions that unresolved factual
issues remain.14 	The plaintiff must respond with affidavits or other documents15
setting forth specific facts to show that a genuine issue exists requiring a trial.16
Char alleged claims against American for negligence, unseaworthiness,
and for reinstatement of maintenance and cure. 	Char contended that American
negligently caused his neck and 	knee injury that he sustained while he was
working on their ships and that the F/T American Dynasty was unseaworthy
when Char injured his knee while working on it. 	Char also alleged a continuing
entitlement to maintenance and cure for his injuries.
Negligence
The 	elements 	of 	a 	negligence 	claim 	are 	duty, 	breach, 	notice, 	and
causation.17 	The only difference between a common law negligence claim and a
negligence claim under the Jones Act18 asserted by Char is the standard for
causation. 	"The quantum of evidence necessary to support a finding of Jones
Act negligence is less than that required for common law negligence and even
13 Young. 112 Wn.2d at 225 (guoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)).
14 Sevbold, 105 Wn. App. at 676; Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm't
Co., 106 Wn.2d 1, 13, 721 P.2d 1 (1986).
15 CR 56(e).
16 Sevbold, 105 Wn. App. at 676.
17 Ribitzki v. Canmar Reading & Bates. Ltd. P'ship, 111 F.3d 658, 662 (9th
Cir. 1997).
1846U.S.C. §30104.
-8-

No. 72160-7-1/9
the slightest negligence is sufficient to sustain a finding of liability."19 	Although
the duty to provide a safe ship is broad, "[tjhere must be some evidence from
which the trier of fact can infer that the owner either knew, or in the exercise of
due care, should have known of the unsafe condition."20
Char contends that American negligently caused his injuries. 	The parties
agree that Char worked for American and that American owed him the duty of
providing a safe ship. 	But American submitted the only evidence showing the
causes 	of 	Char's 	injuries: 	(1) 	Char's 	own 	negligence 	or 	(2) 	normal 	ship
movement. 	To defeat the summary judgment motion, Char needed to present
competent evidence showing that American's negligence caused his injuries.
Because he did not present any evidence to support this claim, the trial court
properly dismissed it.
Seaworthiness
A shipowner has an absolute duty to maintain a seaworthy ship.21 	This
means a ship is reasonably fit for its intended use.22 	To establish a claim for
unseaworthiness, Char must show "(1) the warranty of seaworthiness extended
to 	him and 	his duties; 	(2) his 	injury was 	caused 	by a 	piece of the 	ship's
19 Havens v. F/T Polar Mist, 996 F.2d 215, 218 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal
citation omitted).
20 Havens, 996 F.2d at 218; see also Dempsev v. Mac Towing. Inc.. 876
F.2d 1538, 1543 (11th Cir. 1989); Perry v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co.. 528 F.2d
1378, 1379 (5th Cir. 1976).
21 Mitchell v. Trawler Racer. Inc.. 362 U.S. 539, 549, 80 S. Ct. 926, 4 L.
Ed. 2d 941 (1960); Ribitzki. 111 F.3d at 664.
22 Mitchell, 362 U.S. at 550; Ribitzki, 111 F.3d at 664.

No. 72160-7-1/10
equipment 	or 	an 	appurtenant 	appliance; 	(3) 	the 	equipment 	used 	was 	not
reasonably fit for its intended use; and (4) the unseaworthy condition proximately
caused his injuries."23 	He can prove his claim without showing American's actual
or constructive knowledge of an unseaworthy condition.24
Char contends that the F/T American Dynasty was not seaworthy because
he fell and injured his knees when he lost his balance due to an unanticipated
motion 	caused 	by 	it 	shifting 	in 	bad 	weather. 	But 	American 	presented
uncontroverted 	evidence 	showing 	that 	the 	vessel 	operated 	in 	normal 	sea
conditions in moderate weather and was not slippery or otherwise unseaworthy.
Char did not provide any contrary evidence about the weather conditions or show
that the ship had faulty equipment. 	Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed
this claim.
Maintenance and Cure
Finally, Char claims that American owes him additional maintenance and
cure because he 	has not achieved 	maximum 	recovery from 	his 	injuries. 	A
"shipowner's 	duty 	to 	pay 	maintenance 	and 	cure 	is 	so 	broad 	that 	it arises
regardless of the shipowner's fault or negligence or the seaman's contributory
fault."25 	If a 	shipowner decides to stop paying 	maintenance and 	cure to a
seaman based on its determination that the seaman has reached maximum cure,
23 Ribitzki. 111 F.3d at 664.
24 Mitchell, 362 U.S. at 549; Ribitzki, 111 F.3d at 664.
25 Dean v. Fishing Co. of Alaska. Inc.. 177 Wn.2d 399, 408, 300 P.3d 815
(2013); Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U.S. 724, 730-31, 63 S. Ct. 930, 87 L
Ed. 1107(1943).
-10-

No. 72160-7-1/11
the seaman may seek to reinstate maintenance and cure.26 	A shipowner who
refuses 	to 	reinstate 	maintenance 	and 	cure 	bears 	the 	burden 	of 	providing
unequivocal 	evidence 	that 	the 	seaman 	has 	reached 	maximum 	cure.27
'""Maximum medical cure" is reached when the seaman recovers from the injury,
the condition permanently stabilizes or cannot be improved further.'"28
American provided uncontroverted evidence that Char's doctors had all
determined that Char needed no additional medical treatment they could provide
that would improve his condition before American stopped paying maintenance
and cure. 	Char did not submit any evidence contradicting the findings of these
physicians. 	Without 	any 	contradicting 	evidence, 	the 	evidence 	provided 	by
American 	unequivocally showed that all 	physicians 	had 	released 	Char from
treatment to return to work. 	Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed this
claim.
26 Dean, 177 Wn.2d at 409-10.
27 Dean, 177 Wn.2d at 410 (citing Johnson v. Marlin Drilling Co.. 893 F.2d
77, 79 (5th Cir. 1990)).
28 Dean, 177 Wn.2d at 406 (quoting McMillan v. Tug Jane A. Bouchard.
885 F. Supp. 452, 459 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)).
-11-

No. 72160-7-1/12
Conclusion
Char has not demonstrated the existence of any genuine issue of material
fact 	relevant to 	any 	of 	his 	claims. 	Nor 	has 	he 	shown 	that the trial 	court
misapplied the law. 	Thus, we affirm.
WE CONCUR:
§!fcfcag 	/ -
-12-