FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 06 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COASTAL VILLAGES POLLOCK, LLC, No. 14-35353
an Alaskan corporation doing business in
Washington, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01234-JCC
Petitioner - Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
AHOKAYA V. LANU NAUFAHU, an
individual,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 31, 2016**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and DAVIS,*** Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Andre M. Davis, Senior Circuit Judge for the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Appellant Ahokava Lanu Naufahu1 challenges the summary judgment in
favor of Appellee Coastal Villages Pollock, LLC (“Coastal Villages”) that Naufahu
is not entitled to maintenance and cure, compensation available under general
maritime law to a seaman who falls ill or becomes injured while in the service of a
ship, see Lipscomb v. Foss Maritime Co., 83 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 1996), from
his former employer. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. The parties are
familiar with the factual background, so we do not recite it here.
Coastal Villages moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Naufahu
was not entitled to maintenance and cure because his pulmonary conditions did not
arise or manifest while he was working in service of the vessel and because, in any
event, Naufahu’s failure to disclose his medical conditions when specifically asked
about them precluded him from seeking relief. The district court granted Coastal
Villages’s motion on the latter ground, known as the willful concealment defense.
Coastal Villages Pollock, LLC v. Naufahu, Nos. C13-1234-JCC, C13-1235-JCC,
2014 WL 1053126, at *6–7 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2014).
We review de novo a district court’s decision granting summary judgment.
Tremain v. Bell Indus., Inc., 196 F.3d 970, 975 (9th Cir. 1999). In doing so, “[w]e
1
Naufahu’s first name was apparently misspelled in the caption of this case.
2
determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district
court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.” Wallis v. Princess Cruises,
Inc., 306 F.3d 827, 832 (9th Cir. 2002).
Contrary to Naufahu’s assertion, this case does not present a genuine issue
of material fact. The relevant question on appeal is whether the district court
correctly determined, as a matter of law, that Coastal Villages satisfied the
materiality prong of the willful concealment defense based on the largely
undisputed factual record. We hold that it did.
The Ninth Circuit has recognized that, “[w]here a seaman is asked to
disclose pertinent information during a prehiring medical examination or interview
and intentionally conceals or misrepresents material facts, he is not entitled to an
award of maintenance and cure.” Burkert v. Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co., 350 F.2d 826,
829 n.4 (9th Cir. 1965). Contrary to Naufahu’s argument, this Court has not
determined that the willful concealment defense requires an employer to show that
it absolutely would not have hired a seaman if the seaman had revealed his medical
conditions when asked about them.
Here, Coastal Villages asked about specific health conditions relevant to the
work that Naufahu would perform aboard the Northern Hawk on a preemployment
3
questionnaire that it used to make hiring decisions, and a Coastal Villages
representative testified that the company would have conducted further inquiry and
may not have hired Naufahu had the seaman disclosed his pulmonary conditions.
Thus, the company satisfied the materiality requirement of the willful concealment
defense.
As Naufahu concedes that Coastal Villages otherwise established the
elements of this defense, the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment in favor of Coastal Villages.
AFFIRMED.
4