(caption unavailable)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 93-4882
Summary Calendar
SHERMAN MOUTON, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CAMERON OFFSHORE BOATS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
______________________________
No. 93-4933
Summary Calendar
SHERMAN MOUTON, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
CAMERON OFFSHORE BOATS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
CAMERON OFFSHORE BOATS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(1:91-CV-746)

-- 1 of 4 --

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
2
(February 18, 1994)
Before GARWOOD, SMITH and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
OPINION
We address in this joint opinion both of the above-referenced
appeals which arose out of the same lawsuit at the trial level. On
June 15, 1990, Sherman Mouton, Sr. ("Mouton") was serving as a deck
hand on board the 42' vessel, M/V Monique McCall, which was being
operated by his employer, Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc. ("Cameron")
as a supply vessel furnishing assistance to the oil spill clean-up
operations resulting from the explosion and fire aboard the super
tanker "Megaborg" which had occurred on June 10, 1990. These
clean-up operations were located approximately 60 miles offshore
from Galveston, Texas, and on the day in question, the M/V Monique
McCall attempted to make a trip from the Port of Galveston to the
clean-up site, but was forced to return to port because of heavy
seas. Two or three weeks later, Mouton began to experience
numbness in his right leg, which got progressively worse with time
until the numbness affected his entire right side. In September,
1990, Mouton went to a hospital emergency room and was subsequently
diagnosed as having herniated disks in his spine at several levels.
In August 1991, Mouton sued Cameron and other defendants under the

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Jones Act and unseaworthiness theories, as well as for maintenance
and cure, for the damages which he claimed resulted from the
substantial pounding which he experienced during the aborted trip
on June 15, 1993. The other defendants settled, and Mouton's
claims against Cameron were tried to the district judge without a
jury. After hearing plaintiff's evidence, the district judge
dismissed Mouton's Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims on
Cameron's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c). Later on, the
district judge considered further argument and evidence pertaining
to Mouton's claim for continued maintenance and cure and ultimately
ruled that Mouton was entitled to continued maintenance and cure
benefits.
Mouton timely appealed from the district judge's dismissal of
his Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims; and Cameron timely
appealed from the rulings of the Court regarding continuance of
maintenance and cure.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply briefs, the
record excerpts and pertinent portions of the record itself. We
are satisfied that the trial judge's findings that (i) there was no
unseaworthiness on the part of the M/V Monique McCall and (ii) no
negligence on the part of the captain operating the vessel as he
did on June 15, 1990 are well within the range of credible evidence
and are not clearly erroneous. Consequently, we affirm the
dismissal of the plaintiff's Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims
under Rule 52(c). Similarly, we are satisfied that the trial
judge's finding that the difficulties experienced by Mouton with

-- 3 of 4 --

wjl\opin\93-4882.opn
hrd 4
his back prior to his employment by Cameron were not causally
related to the ruptured disks which Mouton suffered as a result of
his employment on the vessel is clearly within the range of
credible medical expert testimony and is not clearly erroneous.
Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the trial court ordering
continuance of maintenance and cure benefits.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --