NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OCT 06 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AMERICAN SEAFOODS COMPANY No. 14-35354
LLC,
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01235-JCC
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
AHOKAYA V. LANU NAUFAHU,
Defendant - 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 American Seafoods Company LLC (“American Seafoods”) 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.
American Seafoods 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, even if they did, Naufahu has reached maximum medical
improvement for his conditions. American Seafoods also argued that, in any event,
Naufahu’s willful failure to disclose his medical conditions in 2010 when
specifically asked about them precluded him from seeking relief. The district court
found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether
Naufahu’s pulmonary conditions “occurred, [were] aggravated, or manifested”
while he worked for American Seafoods and whether Naufahu had reached
1
Naufahu’s first name was apparently misspelled in the caption of this case.
2
maximum medical improvement status. But it granted summary judgment to
American Seafoods on the last ground, known as the willful concealment defense.
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).
This case does not present a genuine issue of material fact. Rather, the
primary question is whether American Seafoods satisfied the materiality prong of
the willful concealment defense.
Regarding the materiality issue, we hold, for the same reasons as in the
companion case, Coastal Villages Pollock, LLC v. Naufahu, No. 14-35353, that
American Seafoods satisfied the materiality prong of the willful concealment
defense as a matter of law. Here, American Seafoods asked about specific health
conditions relevant to the work that Naufahu would perform aboard the Northern
Hawk on a preemployment questionnaire and an updated health assessment,
documents that it used to make hiring decisions, and an American Seafoods
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. See Burkert v. Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co., 350 F.2d 826, 829 n.4 (9th Cir.
1965).
3
Further, we reject Naufahu’s alternative assertion that he is entitled to
maintenance and cure notwithstanding his willful concealment because his health
problems arose and the obligation to provide compensation vested at some point
before the willful omission. Naufahu has presented and this Court is aware of no
legal authority supporting such an argument.
AFFIRMED.
4