Fifth Circuit on Jones Act Wage Loss and Punitive Cure Damages: Vaughn v. ACBL

In Vaughn v. American Commercial Barge Line, L.L.C., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed two issues that regularly matter in Jones Act personal-injury litigation: the proof required to support a future wage-loss award and the level of employer misconduct necessary for punitive damages and attorney’s fees based on delayed cure payments.

The decision was filed October 17, 2025 and is expressly designated as unpublished under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5. It should therefore be treated as a case-specific, nonprecedential decision rather than a new binding rule.

The claim and damages dispute

Jamal Vaughn worked as a deckhand aboard the M/V Explorer, which was owned and operated by American Commercial Barge Line. The vessel collided with a moored vessel, and Vaughn sustained injuries to his head, neck, back, and right shoulder. ACBL stipulated to Jones Act liability, leaving damages for resolution at a bench trial.

The district court awarded $221,246 in past wage loss and $750,000 in future wage loss, in addition to damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and future disability. The parties’ economic experts had offered materially different future-loss estimates.

Future wage loss requires an explained methodology

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the past wage-loss award. Although ACBL argued that Vaughn could have returned to some form of work before trial, the appellate court concluded that the district court’s implicit mitigation finding was not clearly erroneous. The opinion also reiterates that failure to mitigate is an affirmative defense for which the defendant bears the burden of proof.

The future wage-loss award received different treatment. The district court had selected $750,000 by extrapolating between competing expert calculations, but it did not adequately explain how that amount followed the Fifth Circuit’s established Culver II framework. The appellate court vacated that portion of the judgment and remanded for findings addressing work-life loss, the lost-income stream, the total loss, and present-value discounting, with an explanation of the supporting evidence at each step.

Delay alone did not establish punitive cure liability

Vaughn also challenged the denial of punitive damages and attorney’s fees arising from the timing of cure reimbursements. The record reflected extended communications about medical bills and proof of payment, and ACBL had paid $149,813.56 in medical expenses before trial.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of enhanced damages. It emphasized the high burden required to establish that an employer acted in bad faith or was egregiously at fault. An employer may investigate a maintenance-and-cure claim and request reasonable documentation; untimely payment, standing alone, does not establish the callous, arbitrary, or willful conduct required for punitive damages. The court relied on the case-specific record showing that ACBL acknowledged and investigated the claim, made payments, and did not terminate benefits because Vaughn retained counsel.

Practical significance for maritime claims professionals

For Jones Act damages analysis, the decision underscores that a future wage-loss number must be tied to a transparent methodology and evidence. Averaging or selecting a figure between competing experts without explaining the required steps creates appellate risk.

For maintenance-and-cure administration, the opinion reinforces the value of a documented claim-handling record: acknowledge the claim, investigate promptly, identify missing support, communicate requests clearly, pay supported and undisputed expenses, and record the reasons for any disputed treatment. Those actions do not eliminate litigation risk, but they can be central to whether delayed payment is characterized as an administrative or evidentiary dispute rather than bad faith.

Case: Vaughn v. American Commercial Barge Line, L.L.C., No. 23-30494 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2025) (unpublished).

Primary source: Read the Fifth Circuit opinion.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The images are illustrative and do not depict the parties, vessel, or casualty discussed in the opinion.