Maritime Claim Timelines and Deadlines: Every Filing Date You Cannot Miss

Section 1

Why timing decides maritime injury cases

1. Why timing decides maritime injury cases

The reason maritime law has so many deadlines is structural. Maritime injury rights come from five separate frameworks: the Jones Act, the LHWCA, OCSLA, DOHSA, and general maritime law. Each framework has its own filing rules, its own statute of limitations, and its own procedural deadlines. On top of that, federal admiralty procedure has its own time limits separate from the substantive statutes. State law may apply concurrently in some cases, adding yet another layer of deadlines.

For an injured worker or grieving family, this complexity is dangerous. A single overlooked deadline can cost millions of dollars in recoverable damages. Even worse, the deadlines that catch people most often are not the obvious ones. The Jones Act three-year period is well known and rarely missed. The six-month deadline triggered by a Limitation Act petition, the LHWCA 30-day notice rule, the evidence preservation windows, and the pre-suit notice requirements in some jurisdictions are far less known and far more often missed.

The four categories of maritime deadlines

• Statutes of limitations: Hard cutoffs measured in years (Jones Act 3 years, DOHSA 3 years) or months (Limitation Act 6 months). After these run, the underlying right is extinguished.
• Notice and reporting deadlines: Short windows (30 days for LHWCA notice, hours for some Coast Guard reports) that preserve administrative rights or trigger investigations.
• Procedural deadlines: Court-imposed schedules (answer deadlines, discovery cutoffs, motion deadlines, appeal deadlines) that govern case management.
• Evidence preservation windows: Practical, not legal, deadlines after which physical evidence, witnesses, and records become unavailable.

Section 2

The Jones Act 3-year statute of limitations

2. The Jones Act 3-year statute of limitations

The three-year Jones Act statute of limitations is the most widely known maritime deadline, and for good reason. It is the deadline that governs the largest and most valuable category of maritime injury claim, the seaman negligence action under 46 U.S.C. § 30104. The same three-year period also applies to general maritime law claims for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure, by analogy to the Jones Act period, even though those claims technically arise under equitable doctrines.

The deadline runs from accrual, not from the date of injury per se. For most acute traumatic injuries, those two dates are the same. For repetitive-trauma injuries, occupational disease (asbestos exposure, hearing loss, chemical exposure), and latent injuries, the discovery rule applies. Under Crisman v. Odeco, Inc., 932 F.2d 413 (5th Cir. 1991), accrual occurs when the plaintiff knew or should have known of both the injury and its work-related cause. A seaman who develops mesothelioma in 2026 after asbestos exposure in 1990 has until 2029 to file, not until 1993.

Tolling and equitable extensions

The Jones Act statute can be equitably tolled in narrow circumstances. American Pipe & Construction v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (tolling during class action). Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling requires due diligence). Active concealment by the employer, misrepresentation of facts, or duress can extend the period, but courts apply tolling sparingly. Mental incapacity from the injury itself does not automatically toll the statute.

Filing day-of-the-deadline strategy

The standard plaintiff-side practice is to file with at least 30 to 60 days remaining. Filing on the last possible day is risky because clerks can reject filings for technical defects, and re-filing after the deadline does not preserve the original date. A specialty maritime firm files well before the three-year mark to avoid this risk.

State court versus federal court tolling differences

The Jones Act allows filing in either state or federal court under the saving-to-suitors clause. State court actions are governed by state procedural rules, which sometimes include tolling provisions more generous than federal law. Louisiana, for example, has a doctrine of contra non valentem that can toll prescription in cases of fraudulent concealment or undue duress. Texas applies its own version of equitable tolling. A specialty maritime firm evaluates state-law tolling potential when assessing late-filing cases, as the right forum choice can preserve a claim that would be time-barred in federal court.

Maritime exposure and cumulative trauma

Repetitive trauma cases (back injuries from years of heavy lifting, hearing loss from sustained noise exposure, repetitive strain from winch operation) present unique accrual challenges. The injury did not happen on a single date but accumulated over months or years. Courts apply the discovery rule, with accrual occurring when the worker first received a medical diagnosis connecting the symptoms to the work. The strategic implication: workers experiencing chronic pain or progressive symptoms should seek medical evaluation promptly and ask whether the condition is work-related. The diagnosis date often triggers the limitations clock.

Section 3

The Limitation of Liability Act 6-month deadline

3. The Limitation of Liability Act 6-month deadline

The Limitation Act trap catches people who otherwise have years to file. A seaman injured on a vessel has the full three-year Jones Act statute of limitations. But if the vessel owner files a limitation petition immediately after the casualty (which is common after a serious incident, especially fatalities), the injured worker now has only six months from the notice to file a verified claim in federal admiralty court. Miss that six-month window and the claim is extinguished as against the vessel owner, regardless of the underlying merits.

The Limitation Act was enacted in 1851 to encourage American maritime commerce by capping shipowner liability at the post-casualty value of the vessel and its pending freight. Sinking ships often have a post-casualty value near zero, which is the strategic appeal of the Act. A vessel owner facing $50 million in injury claims can file a limitation petition asking the court to cap total liability at the salvage value of the wreck. The procedural rule, set out in Federal Supplemental Rule F, requires all claimants to come forward within six months or lose their right to participate.

How the six-month clock starts

The notice that triggers the six-month period is the formal notice issued by the court after the vessel owner files the limitation complaint. The owner must publish the notice in a designated newspaper and serve copies on known claimants. The clock starts on the date specified in the notice (typically the date of publication), not on the date the claimant actually sees the notice. Claimants who never personally see the published notice still lose their rights at six months unless they show due diligence.

How specialists protect against the trap

The protective practice is to monitor the federal district courts in the relevant maritime jurisdictions (Southern District of Texas, Eastern District of Louisiana, Eastern District of Virginia, Southern District of Florida, Eastern District of New York) for limitation filings. A specialty firm subscribes to PACER alerts and checks weekly for petitions involving any vessel or operator connected to a pending case. When a petition appears, the firm files a claim within weeks, not months. Generalist firms miss this entirely.

Recent significant Limitation Act filings

The Limitation Act remains heavily used in 2026. Recent significant filings illustrate the trap. After the 2024 Bayou Sorrel barge incident in Louisiana, the operator filed a limitation petition within 30 days of the casualty, triggering the six-month claimant deadline. After the 2023 Gulf platform fire fatality off Galveston, the platform operator and the supply vessel owner both filed petitions, requiring claimants to file separate verified claims in two parallel federal proceedings. After the 2022 Mississippi River collision, the limitation petitions resulted in a total of seven separate proceedings, each with its own six-month deadline. Claimants represented by generalists routinely miss these deadlines because the generalist firm is not monitoring federal admiralty filings.

The verified claim itself

The verified claim is the document that preserves the right. Under Supplemental Rule F(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it must (1) be filed with the clerk of the federal admiralty court where the petition was filed, (2) state the claim with specificity (date and location of casualty, nature of injury, basis of vessel-owner liability, dollar amount of damages), (3) be verified by oath of the claimant or authorized representative, and (4) include service on the petitioner. The claim is in some respects simpler than a federal complaint but more demanding in verification. Errors in verification have produced dismissals.

Concursus and the limitation fund

Once the limitation proceeding is established, all claims are heard in a single federal admiralty proceeding called a concursus. The judge first determines whether the vessel owner is entitled to limitation (which depends on whether the casualty occurred without the owner's privity or knowledge). If limitation is denied, the case proceeds as ordinary litigation with full damages available. If limitation is granted, all valid claims share pro rata in the limitation fund (the post-casualty value of the vessel and pending freight). The fund can be near zero for sunk vessels, which is the strategic appeal of limitation for the shipowner.

Section 4

The LHWCA 30-day notice requirement

4. The LHWCA 30-day notice requirement

The LHWCA covers most maritime workers who are not seamen: longshore workers, ship repairers, shipbuilders, harbor workers, and many platform workers covered by the OCSLA extension. The 30-day notice requirement is the first procedural hurdle in any LHWCA case. The notice must be in writing, must identify the worker and the injury, and must be given to the employer or the carrier within 30 days of the injury (or, for occupational diseases, within 30 days of the worker becoming aware of the work-related connection).

The notice itself does not need to be elaborate. Section 912 specifies that the notice "shall state the time, place, nature, and cause of the injury, and shall be signed by the employee or by some person on his behalf, or in case of death, by any person claiming to be entitled to compensation for such death." A handwritten note delivered to the supervisor and a copy of the company injury report typically satisfy the rule. What does not satisfy the rule is oral notice alone, no notice at all, or notice given to a coworker rather than to the employer.

Exceptions and equitable preservation

Section 912(d) preserves the claim despite failure to give notice if the employer or carrier had knowledge of the injury through other means and was not prejudiced by the lack of formal notice. Knowledge can come from a witnessed accident, a workplace investigation, medical treatment paid by the carrier, or the worker's continued symptoms. The employer must show actual prejudice (lost evidence, faded memories, undue delay) to defeat the claim despite knowledge.

What to do if you missed the deadline

If more than 30 days has passed without written notice, immediately deliver written notice now and document the delivery with a return receipt. Also gather evidence of the employer's actual knowledge: incident reports, witness statements, medical records, and any communications referencing the injury. The Section 912(d) exception is workable in most cases where the employer knew about the injury contemporaneously.

Proper service of LHWCA notice

The written notice must be served on the employer or the carrier. Service can be by personal delivery (with witness or signed receipt), certified mail with return receipt, or hand delivery to a supervisor with documentation. Email service has been accepted in some jurisdictions but is not universally recognized. Verbal notification to a supervisor does not satisfy the rule. Notice given to a coworker or to the company doctor does not satisfy the rule. The notice should be addressed to the specific employer entity or to the workers compensation carrier identified on the workplace posting required by 33 U.S.C. § 935.

Occupational disease notice timing

For occupational diseases (asbestosis, mesothelioma, hearing loss, chemical sensitization), the 30-day notice clock starts when the worker becomes aware of the connection between the disease and the employment. A worker diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2026 from asbestos exposure in the 1980s has 30 days from the diagnosis (or from the medical opinion connecting the disease to work exposure) to give notice, not 30 days from the original exposure. The discovery rule for LHWCA occupational diseases parallels the Jones Act discovery rule and operates similarly.

Section 5

The LHWCA 1-year claim filing deadline

5. The LHWCA 1-year claim filing deadline

The LHWCA claim deadline is one year, considerably longer than the 30-day notice but much shorter than the Jones Act three-year statute. The claim is filed on Form LS-203 with the local OWCP district office, and it formally initiates the administrative compensation process. Filing the claim preserves the worker's right to medical benefits, temporary and permanent disability benefits, and death benefits for survivors. Filing also triggers the employer or carrier to respond on Form LS-202 and to begin paying compensation if appropriate.

Section 913(b) has an important exception for occupational diseases. For diseases that arise out of long-term exposure (asbestosis, mesothelioma, hearing loss, chemical sensitization), the one-year period does not start until the worker becomes aware that the disease was caused by employment. Williams v. Newport News Shipbuilding, 17 BRBS 61 (1985). This rule mirrors the Jones Act discovery rule for latent injuries.

Tolling for compensation payments

Section 913(c) provides important tolling protection. If the employer or carrier voluntarily pays compensation (medical bills, lost wages, disability) without a formal claim, the one-year clock is tolled for as long as payments continue. Workers receiving voluntary medical care from the employer's carrier sometimes assume their case is "handled" and never file a formal claim. When payments stop, they suddenly have less than one year (perhaps only weeks) to file. Track payment-cessation dates closely.

Section 8(i) settlement deadline interactions

If the parties reach a settlement, it must be approved by an administrative law judge under Section 8(i). The approval process takes 30 to 90 days. Settlement does not extend the one-year claim-filing deadline, so any settlement discussions must happen with the claim already on file. Many LHWCA practitioners file claims immediately upon retention to preserve the deadline, then negotiate.

Section 6

OCSLA deadlines and state-law surrogates

6. OCSLA deadlines and state-law surrogates

OCSLA is unique among maritime frameworks because it does not have its own substantive law. Instead, it borrows the law of the adjacent state to fill the gap on fixed platforms beyond state territorial waters. Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 395 U.S. 352 (1969). The deadlines that apply therefore depend on which state's law is borrowed: Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, California, or another coastal state whose waters are adjacent to the platform location.

The most important deadline difference is Louisiana's one-year prescription period for personal injury under La. Civ. Code art. 3492. Louisiana is the most common OCSLA jurisdiction (covering the central and western Gulf of Mexico) and has the shortest deadline among the OCSLA states. Texas's two-year statute applies to platforms in the eastern Gulf adjacent to Texas waters. Mississippi and Alabama have three-year periods. California's two-year period applies to Pacific OCS platforms.

Determining the adjacent state

The adjacent state is determined by the projection of state boundaries seaward. The Submerged Lands Act and presidential proclamations define the lateral boundaries between states. A platform near the Texas-Louisiana boundary may be governed by either state's law depending on its exact location. Specialty OCSLA firms maintain platform-by-platform jurisdictional maps because misidentifying the adjacent state can be fatal to a case.

Federal procedural rules still apply

Even though state substantive law applies on OCS platforms, federal procedural rules govern in federal court. Removal, pleading, discovery, and motion practice follow the Federal Rules. The state-law surrogate affects the substantive deadlines (statute of limitations, prescription) but not procedural deadlines (answer time, discovery cutoffs, summary judgment deadlines).

Section 7

The DOHSA 3-year statute of limitations

7. The DOHSA 3-year statute of limitations

DOHSA governs wrongful death and survival claims arising on the high seas, defined as waters more than three nautical miles from U.S. shores (or more than 12 miles for commercial aviation accidents, per the 2000 amendment to the Act). The three-year statute of limitations parallels the Jones Act SOL but applies only to high-seas deaths, not nearshore or land-based deaths.

Two important differences from Jones Act timing apply. First, the DOHSA clock runs from the date of death, not the date of injury. A worker who is injured at sea but dies after returning to shore is still covered by DOHSA if the underlying cause of death occurred more than three miles offshore. Sanchez v. Loffland Bros. Co., 626 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1980). Second, the discovery rule does not generally apply to DOHSA deaths because death is, by its nature, an obvious event. The exception is wrongful death from latent occupational diseases that manifest after long latency periods.

Who must file

Only the personal representative of the decedent's estate can file under DOHSA. The personal representative is typically appointed by the probate court of the decedent's domicile. Filing without a properly appointed personal representative is a fatal procedural defect. Specialty DOHSA practitioners often help families establish the estate and appoint the personal representative within weeks of the death so the lawsuit can be filed quickly.

DOHSA versus general maritime law for death cases

If the death occurred within three nautical miles of shore, DOHSA does not apply and general maritime law governs (along with potentially state wrongful-death statutes for non-seamen, or the Jones Act for seamen). The deadline analysis is then different. The location of death matters enormously because the law and the deadlines differ.

DOHSA damages limitations and the pecuniary-loss rule

DOHSA limits wrongful death recovery to pecuniary damages: lost financial support, lost services, and lost inheritance. Non-pecuniary damages (loss of society, mental anguish, grief, loss of consortium) are not recoverable under Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990). The pecuniary-only rule produces lower verdicts than state wrongful death statutes that allow non-pecuniary damages. For a young decedent with high earning capacity, the difference between DOHSA recovery and state-law recovery can be millions of dollars. This is why the precise location of death (inside or outside three nautical miles) is so important. Specialty firms investigate location through GPS records, voyage logs, and witness testimony to position the case in the more favorable framework when possible.

DOHSA and the 2000 commercial aviation amendment

The 2000 amendment to DOHSA, codified at 46 U.S.C. § 30307, expanded coverage for deaths in commercial aviation accidents to include deaths within 12 nautical miles of U.S. shores (rather than 3 miles for vessel-related deaths). The amendment also explicitly authorized non-pecuniary damages for these aviation deaths. Cases involving helicopter transport to or from offshore platforms can fall under this 12-mile expansion when the helicopter crash itself occurs at sea, dramatically improving the damage analysis compared to traditional vessel-related DOHSA claims.

Concurrent state-law death claims

Even when DOHSA applies, plaintiffs may have concurrent state-law wrongful death claims against non-shipowner defendants (equipment manufacturers, contractors, third-party operators). These concurrent claims are governed by state-law deadlines and may allow non-pecuniary damages. A successful DOHSA case against the shipowner combined with a state-law case against the equipment manufacturer can produce significantly higher total recovery than DOHSA alone.

Section 8

General maritime law and the laches doctrine

8. General maritime law and the laches doctrine

Laches is an equitable defense that operates on two elements: (1) unreasonable delay by the plaintiff, and (2) prejudice to the defendant. Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud, 351 U.S. 525 (1956). Unlike a fixed statute of limitations, which is a hard cutoff regardless of equities, laches allows courts to weigh the reasons for delay against the prejudice caused. A plaintiff with a good reason for delay (concealment, mistaken identity, ongoing medical treatment) may overcome a laches defense even after the analogous limitations period has passed.

For most purposes, however, courts presume laches has been satisfied when the analogous statute of limitations would have expired. The Jones Act three-year period is the most commonly used analog for seaman injury and unseaworthiness claims. McMahon v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 297 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1962). State personal injury statutes are sometimes used as analogs in mixed cases.

Maintenance and cure laches

Maintenance and cure claims are also governed by laches, but the analogous period is shorter because the obligation is ongoing. A seaman who waits years to demand cure for symptoms that began at the time of injury may face laches even though the original injury was within three years. The seaman should formally demand cure promptly after symptoms emerge and document the demand and any denials.

Strategic implications

Because general maritime law claims are governed by laches rather than a fixed deadline, plaintiffs and defendants both have more flexibility. A plaintiff who barely misses the three-year mark on a related Jones Act claim may still proceed on the unseaworthiness claim if equities favor allowing the case. Conversely, a plaintiff who delays for years without good reason can lose general maritime claims even within the analogous three-year window.

Section 9

State-law deadlines for concurrent claims

9. State-law deadlines for concurrent claims

The maritime cases that produce the highest recoveries are usually multi-defendant cases involving the maritime employer plus one or more product manufacturers, equipment lessors, contractors, or third-party operators. The maritime employer is governed by the Jones Act or LHWCA. The product manufacturers are typically governed by state product liability law. The third parties may be governed by state law for general negligence or premises liability. Each cause of action carries its own deadline.

State product liability statutes of limitations range from one year (Louisiana) to six years (Maine). Most states have two- or three-year periods, but the rules around accrual and the discovery rule vary widely. Statutes of repose, which extinguish product liability claims after a certain number of years from manufacture regardless of when the injury occurred, exist in many states (Texas: 15 years for most products, North Carolina: 12 years, Indiana: 10 years). The repose period can bar an otherwise valid claim even within the limitations period.

Saving-to-suitors clause forum strategy

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, the saving-to-suitors clause allows most Jones Act and general maritime claims to be filed in state court instead of federal admiralty court. Filing in state court sometimes makes the case subject to state procedural deadlines (notice rules, pre-suit demand requirements, expert affidavit rules) that do not apply in federal court. Specialty firms map the state versus federal deadlines before filing.

Pre-suit notice in state law

Many states require pre-suit notice for specific kinds of claims. Texas requires a 60-day pre-suit notice for medical liability cases. Florida requires pre-suit notice for actions against political subdivisions. Louisiana has medical review panel requirements for malpractice claims. These pre-suit notices are jurisdictional in many cases. Missing them defeats the claim regardless of when the lawsuit is filed.

State product liability statutes of repose

Statutes of repose are different from statutes of limitations. A limitations period runs from injury or discovery. A repose period runs from a fixed event (sale, manufacture, completion of work) and extinguishes the right after a set number of years regardless of when the injury occurred. For maritime equipment manufacturers, state repose periods can bar product liability claims even within the limitations period. Texas applies a 15-year repose period for most products under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.012. North Carolina applies a 12-year repose period. Indiana applies a 10-year period. Connecticut applies a 10-year period with exceptions. Many states have no repose period or apply repose only to certain product categories. A 20-year-old crane that fails in 2026 may have no viable product liability claim if the manufacturer is in a repose state, even though the worker is timely under the personal injury statute.

Employer dual capacity and concurrent state-law claims

Some states allow workers covered by the Jones Act or LHWCA to bring concurrent state-law claims against the employer in unusual circumstances. The dual capacity doctrine recognizes that an employer who manufactures or designs the equipment that injured the worker may face state-law product liability liability beyond the maritime remedy. Louisiana, Texas, and California have applied dual capacity in maritime contexts under specific facts. The viability and scope of dual capacity is fact-specific and requires careful analysis.

Forum non conveniens and venue strategy

Federal maritime courts can apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens to dismiss cases that would be better tried in another forum. Foreign-flag vessels, foreign-port casualties, and cases involving primarily foreign witnesses are vulnerable to forum non conveniens dismissal. The doctrine applies in both federal and state court but is more commonly invoked in federal admiralty cases. A successful forum non conveniens motion sends the case to a foreign court where the substantive law and damages are typically less favorable to the plaintiff.

Section 10

Maintenance and cure benefits duration

10. Maintenance and cure benefits duration

Maintenance and cure is the no-fault, ongoing obligation that the vessel owner owes to seamen who fall ill or are injured in the service of the vessel. Maintenance pays for daily living expenses (food, lodging, utilities) at a per-diem rate. Cure pays for medical treatment. Both continue until the seaman reaches MMI or returns to work, whichever comes first. The obligation predates the Jones Act and exists independent of negligence or fault.

The MMI standard, derived from Vella and refined by lower courts, means the point at which "additional improvement will result from continued medical treatment." It does not mean the seaman is fully healed, only that further treatment will not produce more improvement. A seaman with a permanent partial disability who has reached the medical plateau is at MMI even though impairment continues. A seaman in active rehabilitation with measurable ongoing improvement is not at MMI.

How long MMI typically takes by injury type

• Soft tissue and minor injuries: 8 to 16 weeks typical recovery to MMI.
• Fractures requiring surgery: 6 to 12 months including hardware removal.
• Spinal injuries requiring fusion: 12 to 24 months including post-operative rehabilitation.
• Traumatic brain injuries: 12 to 36 months with cognitive rehabilitation.
• Complex orthopedic injuries with multiple surgeries: 18 to 48 months.
• Burn injuries with reconstruction: 24 to 60 months including scar revisions.

Punitive damages for wrongful termination

Under Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009), wrongful termination of maintenance and cure exposes the employer to punitive damages and attorneys' fees on top of the unpaid benefits. The threat of punitive damages often produces immediate restoration of benefits when termination is challenged.

Calculation of maintenance rate

Maintenance is paid at a per-diem rate covering daily living expenses (food, lodging, utilities, transportation). The rate varies by collective bargaining agreement, employer policy, or judicial determination if no agreement exists. Unionized seamen typically receive maintenance under their CBA rate, which can range from $35 to $45 per day in 2026. Non-unionized seamen receive a rate determined by the court, typically using actual reasonable living expenses with documented receipts. Some employers attempt to pay token amounts ($8 per day, the historical rate) without judicial determination, which is challengeable as inadequate.

Cure includes more than emergency care

The cure obligation extends to all reasonably necessary medical treatment for the work-related condition, including hospitalization, surgery, physical therapy, prescription medications, durable medical equipment (wheelchairs, hospital beds), and even some experimental treatments where standard treatments have failed. The seaman has the right to choose the treating physician. The employer cannot dictate the treatment plan. Disputes over experimental or unusual treatment are resolved by judicial inquiry into reasonableness and necessity, with the seaman bearing the initial burden of proof.

Section 11

Maximum medical improvement and benefit cutoffs

11. Maximum medical improvement and benefit cutoffs

The employer typically declares MMI based on an examination by a physician of its choosing, often a company-aligned doctor with experience reading the workers' comp playbook. The declaration triggers immediate cessation of maintenance and cure payments. The seaman has every right to contest the declaration, especially if a treating physician disagrees with the MMI finding.

Under Cooper v. Diamond M Co., 799 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1986), the seaman has the right to select the treating physician for cure purposes. The employer cannot force the seaman to use a company doctor or limit choice to a particular network. The seaman's treating physician's opinion on MMI carries significant weight in any subsequent dispute. The standard remedy when MMI is disputed is to continue treatment with the treating physician, document the ongoing improvement, and file suit to recover the wrongfully terminated benefits.

Independent medical examination

If the employer's doctor declares MMI and the treating physician disagrees, the dispute is usually resolved by an independent medical examiner (IME) appointed either by agreement or by the court. The IME is an unaligned specialist who reviews the file and examines the seaman. The IME report becomes the operative MMI determination unless successfully challenged at trial. Choice of IME is one of the most important strategic decisions in a maritime injury case.

Future medical treatment after MMI

Reaching MMI does not eliminate the need for future medical treatment. A seaman with a permanent injury may need lifelong physical therapy, medications, periodic surgeries, durable medical equipment, and home modifications. These future medical costs are recoverable as damages in the Jones Act or unseaworthiness claim, separate from cure. A life care planner typically calculates the lifetime cost. Failure to project these costs is a common generalist error that leaves money on the table.

Section 12

Evidence preservation deadlines

12. Evidence preservation deadlines

Unlike land-based injury cases where evidence sits relatively stable until discovery, maritime evidence disappears quickly. Vessels return to service. Crew members rotate off. Equipment gets repaired or replaced. Computer logs cycle and overwrite. Maintenance records get filed and lost. Witnesses scatter to new projects. By the time most cases reach formal discovery (typically six months to two years post-injury), much of the crucial evidence has degraded or vanished.

The single most important step a maritime injury lawyer takes is sending preservation letters within days of retention. The letter, sometimes called a litigation hold notice, identifies the parties who must preserve evidence and lists the specific categories of evidence that must be retained: vessel logs, dive computer data, video surveillance, equipment maintenance records, training files, medical records, witness statements, drug-test results, communication logs, and personnel files. The letter triggers a legal duty to preserve under federal spoliation doctrine.

Spoliation sanctions

When a party fails to preserve evidence after notice, federal courts can impose sanctions ranging from adverse-inference instructions (the jury is told to assume the destroyed evidence was harmful to the spoliating party) to default judgment in extreme cases. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The threat of spoliation sanctions is often the only thing that compels preservation in the early case stages before formal discovery begins.

Coast Guard and OSHA records via FOIA

Many critical maritime records are held by federal agencies and obtainable through FOIA. Coast Guard Form CG-2692 incident reports, OSHA investigation files, BSEE incident reports for OCS operations, and NTSB casualty reports for major marine casualties are all FOIA-accessible. FOIA processing typically takes 30 to 90 days. Filing FOIA requests within the first 30 days of retention ensures the records arrive in time to inform case strategy.

Categories of maritime evidence requiring immediate preservation

• Vessel logs and records: Captain's log, engine log, dive log (for diving operations), cargo manifest, watch schedule, drill records, training certifications, vessel inspection records, classification society reports.
• Electronic data: Voyage data recorder (VDR), AIS records, ECDIS records, dive computer downloads, gas blender logs, equipment monitoring system data, video surveillance from vessel or platform cameras.
• Maintenance and equipment records: Maintenance work orders for any equipment involved, manufacturer service bulletins, prior incident reports, equipment inspection logs, modification records.
• Personnel files: Hire records, training records, prior performance evaluations, prior disciplinary actions, medical fitness records, drug test history, certifications.
• Communications: Radio logs, satellite communication records, internal emails, text messages, BlackBerry or smartphone data, weather forecasts and warnings received.
• Physical evidence: The actual equipment involved (rigging, valves, hoses, PPE), failed components, debris, photographs of accident scene, blood and tissue samples for toxicology.

The 30-60-90 day preservation timeline

Within the first 30 days, send preservation letters to all potentially liable parties, file FOIA requests for Coast Guard and OSHA records, photograph and document the accident scene, and identify and contact witnesses while memory is fresh. Within 60 days, complete witness interviews and obtain statements, retain a maritime expert to review the accident, and follow up on preservation letters with verification of compliance. Within 90 days, file complaint and serve preservation discovery requests, request inspection of vessel and equipment, and depose witnesses whose recollection or availability is at risk.

Section 13

Coast Guard incident reporting deadlines

13. Coast Guard incident reporting deadlines

The Coast Guard reporting framework distinguishes between two types of notice obligations. Immediate notice (telephone, radio, or in person) must be given as soon as practical after a serious marine casualty. This includes any casualty involving death, missing persons, serious injury, property damage over $75,000, or significant harm to the environment. The immediate notice triggers the Coast Guard's investigative response.

Written notice on Form CG-2692 is then required within five days of the casualty. The written report provides a detailed account of what happened, the vessels involved, the personnel affected, the damages, and the suspected cause. The Coast Guard reviews the form and may initiate a formal Marine Casualty Investigation, which produces a detailed investigative report with findings. The CG-2692 report itself, the underlying investigation file, and any resulting Marine Casualty Report are obtainable through FOIA and are often the most valuable single piece of evidence in a maritime injury case.

Vessel master and owner obligations

The reporting obligation rests on the vessel master, owner, agent, or person in charge under 46 CFR § 4.05-1. Multiple parties can be responsible. Failure to report is punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation under 46 U.S.C. § 6103, plus potential criminal liability for false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The reporting obligation is independent of the litigation timeline and is not affected by settlement or release.

Confidentiality limits

Coast Guard casualty reports are not privileged. The full CG-2692, the investigation file, witness statements taken by USCG investigators, and the formal Marine Casualty Report are all discoverable and admissible. Statements made to USCG investigators by vessel personnel can be used against the employer in the civil case. This is one reason why injured workers should never give recorded statements to USCG investigators without consulting counsel first.

Drug and alcohol testing deadlines

Under 46 CFR Part 4 and Part 16, the marine employer must conduct chemical testing of all personnel involved in a serious marine incident. Urine specimens for drugs of abuse must be collected within 32 hours of the incident. Breath alcohol testing must be completed within 8 hours. Failure to test produces an evidentiary presumption against the employer in subsequent litigation. The injured worker has the right to be present during the test and to a copy of the results. The results are discoverable but are not admissible to show the worker was at fault unless intoxication is established by qualified scientific evidence.

Significant marine casualty thresholds

• Death of any person from a casualty.
• Injury to a person requiring professional medical treatment beyond first aid, when the person involved is a passenger, crewmember, or any other person, including any injury to a crewmember that renders the crewmember unfit to perform routine vessel duties.
• Property damage exceeding $75,000 to vessel and cargo.
• Loss of vessel propulsion or steering, even briefly, that creates a hazard.
• An occurrence involving the release of more than 50 gallons of oil into navigable waters.
• An occurrence involving the release of a hazardous substance, however small, into navigable waters.

NTSB investigation triggers

For major marine casualties (catastrophic loss of life, significant environmental damage, loss of vessel), the National Transportation Safety Board may conduct an independent investigation in addition to the Coast Guard investigation. NTSB reports are admissible but the investigation itself takes 12 to 24 months. The reports are factually detailed and often identify probable cause, which can be powerful in subsequent civil litigation.

Section 14

OSHA reporting deadlines for maritime injuries

14. OSHA reporting deadlines for maritime injuries

OSHA's reporting framework, set out in 29 CFR § 1904.39, requires employers to report severe work-related injuries directly to OSHA: fatalities within 8 hours of death, and inpatient hospitalizations, amputations, or eye losses within 24 hours of the incident or hospital admission. The report can be made by telephone or online and triggers an OSHA inspection in most cases. The inspection produces an investigation file that includes interviews, photographs, and citations issued.

Maritime employers covered by OSHA include shipyards (29 CFR Part 1915), marine terminals (29 CFR Part 1917), longshoring operations (29 CFR Part 1918), and most diving operations (29 CFR Part 1910 Subpart T). Employers operating uninspected vessels in navigation are exempt from OSHA under the marine sanctuary doctrine of Donovan v. Red Star Marine Services, 739 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1984). OSHA-covered employers must keep injury logs (Form 300, 301, 300A) and submit annual summary data.

OSHA citation as evidence

OSHA citations are admissible in subsequent civil cases under Albrecht v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 808 F.2d 329 (4th Cir. 1987). A citation issued in connection with the injury can be powerful evidence of the employer's negligence, particularly where the citation relates to the same hazard that caused the injury. The citation is not conclusive of negligence but is strong corroborative evidence. Specialty firms FOIA the OSHA file early in every case.

Whistleblower protection deadlines

Workers who report safety hazards or injuries to OSHA are protected from retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 660(c). The Section 11(c) whistleblower complaint must be filed with OSHA within 30 days of the retaliatory action. Maritime workers also have whistleblower protections under the Seaman's Protection Act, 46 U.S.C. § 2114, with a 180-day deadline. Both deadlines are short and often missed.

Section 15

Wrongful death claim deadlines by framework

15. Wrongful death claim deadlines by framework

Maritime wrongful death is one of the most framework-sensitive areas of maritime law. The location of death, the status of the decedent (seaman, longshore worker, passenger, third party), and the cause of death all affect which framework applies. The framework determines the available damages, the proper parties, and the filing deadlines. A wrong-framework analysis can lose the case before discovery begins.

For seaman deaths, the Jones Act and general maritime law allow recovery for pecuniary damages (lost financial support, lost services, lost guidance) by survivors. Non-pecuniary damages (loss of society, mental anguish, loss of consortium) are generally not recoverable in Jones Act death cases per Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990), although general maritime law non-seaman death cases can include them. The deadline is three years.

Inside three nautical miles versus outside

For non-seaman maritime deaths, the location of death changes the framework. Inside three nautical miles, general maritime law and state wrongful-death statutes apply, often with broader damages categories including non-pecuniary losses. Outside three miles, DOHSA applies and limits recovery to pecuniary damages. The difference is often a million dollars or more in available damages.

Personal representative establishment

In all wrongful death frameworks, only the personal representative of the decedent's estate can file. Establishing the estate requires probate proceedings in the decedent's home state, including appointment of an administrator and bond posting (if required). The probate process typically takes 30 to 90 days. Failure to establish the estate before filing produces immediate dismissal for lack of standing.

Death certificate timing

Death certificates are usually issued within 1 to 4 weeks of death. The certificate is needed for probate and for the wrongful death complaint. If autopsy or coroner determination is pending, the certificate may be delayed by months. The statute of limitations runs from the date of death, not the date the certificate is issued.

Wrongful death deadlines by state for nearshore deaths

Federal versus state damages in nearshore deaths

For non-seaman deaths within three nautical miles of shore, the choice between federal admiralty and state-court forum can affect available damages. General maritime law allows pecuniary damages (lost financial support, lost services, lost inheritance) and, since Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996), state-law non-pecuniary damages (loss of society, mental anguish, loss of consortium) may be available in nearshore non-seaman cases. The result is that nearshore deaths often produce broader damage recoveries than high-seas deaths governed by DOHSA's pecuniary-only rule.

Section 16

Survival action and personal representative deadlines

16. Survival action and personal representative deadlines

Survival and wrongful death are separate causes of action arising from the same fatal incident. Wrongful death compensates the survivors for their losses. Survival actions compensate the decedent's estate for what the decedent would have recovered had they lived. Both are typically filed in the same complaint, but each requires separate proof and has its own damage calculations.

Under Miles v. Apex Marine, 498 U.S. 19 (1990), survival actions for seamen are available under the Jones Act (incorporating the Federal Employers Liability Act survival provisions) and general maritime law. The deadline mirrors the Jones Act three-year statute, running from the date of injury (not the date of death) since the underlying claim accrued upon injury. State law survival statutes may apply concurrently for non-seaman survival actions, with state-law deadlines (one to six years depending on the state).

Conscious pain and suffering damages

The largest single damage category in many survival cases is conscious pain and suffering between injury and death. A worker who survived for days or weeks in significant pain before dying can recover substantial damages for that suffering. The damages are valued by the jury and typically require medical testimony establishing the level of conscious awareness and pain. St. Louis I.M.&S. Ry. v. Craft, 237 U.S. 648 (1915), recognized this category for railroad workers under FELA and extends to Jones Act seamen.

Personal representative coordination

Because the survival action is brought by the personal representative on behalf of the estate, but the wrongful death action is brought by or for the survivors, the two cases must be coordinated. The personal representative is often a surviving spouse or adult child who also has wrongful death standing. Conflict of interest issues can arise if the survival recovery interferes with the wrongful death recovery. A specialty firm handles both with careful allocation.

Bone marrow and tissue claims

An unusual but increasingly common element of survival actions involves the value of tissue, organs, or DNA samples preserved after death. Recovery for the use, misuse, or commercial exploitation of decedent tissue is possible in some jurisdictions and provides additional damages categories that generalists often miss.

Section 17

Pre-suit notice and demand-letter requirements

17. Pre-suit notice and demand-letter requirements

Pre-suit notice requirements are a procedural trap that catches many otherwise prepared cases. Unlike statutes of limitations, which provide a generous time window, pre-suit notices are short, technical, and often jurisdictional. A claim filed after a missed pre-suit notice is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with no possibility of cure within the limitations period in most cases.

The most common pre-suit notice in maritime cases is the Federal Tort Claims Act administrative claim required for any tort suit against the United States (Coast Guard, Navy, NOAA, MarAd, Army Corps of Engineers). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), the claimant must first present an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency. The agency has six months to act. If it denies or fails to act, the claimant can then file suit in federal district court within six months of the denial. Filing suit without first presenting the administrative claim results in immediate dismissal.

State tort claims act notices

Most states require pre-suit notice for tort claims against state agencies, state colleges, public hospitals, port authorities, and local governments. The notice periods range from 60 days (some states) to 6 months (others). The required contents include the date and location of incident, nature of injury, amount of damages claimed, and supporting documentation. Notice must usually be served on a specific official (attorney general, county clerk, port director). Missing the specific official or filing the wrong form is grounds for dismissal.

Medical liability pre-suit notice

If the maritime injury case includes claims against shore-side or platform-based medical providers, state medical malpractice pre-suit notice requirements may apply. Texas requires 60 days notice and expert affidavit. Florida requires 90 days notice and corroborating affidavit. Louisiana requires medical review panel review before suit. These requirements add layers of pre-suit work that must be completed before the limitations period expires.

Section 18

Removal, remand, and forum-selection deadlines

18. Removal, remand, and forum-selection deadlines

The choice between state and federal court is one of the most important strategic decisions in a maritime injury case. Under the saving-to-suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333, most Jones Act and general maritime claims can be filed in state court. State courts often produce more plaintiff-friendly verdicts, particularly in maritime jurisdictions like Harris County, Texas and Orleans Parish, Louisiana. Defendants typically prefer federal court for the perceived sophistication of the judges and the broader jury pool. The removal and remand fight determines which forum the case will be tried in.

The removal deadline is 30 days from service of the initial pleading or from the date the case first becomes removable (the latter applies when the case becomes removable through amendment or dismissal of a non-diverse party). The defendant files a notice of removal in federal district court, along with copies of all state-court papers. The state action is automatically stayed once the notice is filed.

Jones Act non-removability

Jones Act cases filed in state court are generally not removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a), which prohibits removal of FELA cases. The Jones Act incorporates FELA's procedural protections. However, defendants sometimes attempt removal on grounds that the Jones Act claim is "fraudulently pleaded" to defeat removal jurisdiction. Hufnagel v. Omega Service Industries, Inc., 182 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 1999). A successful fraudulent-pleading challenge results in removal and the seaman loses the saving-to-suitors forum.

Remand motion deadline

If the defendant removes, the plaintiff has 30 days to file a motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The motion can argue procedural defects in removal (untimely filing, missing co-defendant consents) or jurisdictional defects (no federal question, no diversity jurisdiction). Missing the 30-day remand deadline waives procedural objections, although jurisdictional defects can be raised at any time.

Section 19

Discovery and case-management timeline phases

19. Discovery and case-management timeline phases

Federal court case management is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the local rules of the district court, and the scheduling order issued by the judge after the Rule 26(f) discovery conference. The basic structure: complaint filed; defendant answers within 21 days of service (60 if waiver of service); Rule 26(f) conference within 14 days of the answer; scheduling conference with the court; scheduling order issued; discovery proceeds; expert disclosures; depositions; dispositive motions; pretrial order; trial.

The major discovery deadlines under Rule 26 include initial disclosures (Rule 26(a)(1)) within 14 days of the discovery conference; written discovery requests with 30-day response deadlines; expert disclosures (Rule 26(a)(2)) at least 90 days before trial, or 30 days before trial for rebuttal experts; pretrial disclosures (Rule 26(a)(3)) at least 30 days before trial. Each of these is a hard deadline. Missing expert disclosures often results in exclusion of the expert at trial.

Deposition scheduling

Depositions typically occupy the middle and late stages of discovery. The plaintiff's deposition usually happens early (within 60 to 120 days of the answer) so the defense can assess the case. Defense witness depositions (supervisors, coworkers, corporate representatives) follow. Expert depositions are typically scheduled in the final months before trial. Each deposition requires advance notice (typically 10 to 30 days), and rescheduling can ripple through the entire schedule.

Daubert motion deadlines

Challenges to expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), are typically filed as motions in limine before trial. The scheduling order will set a specific Daubert motion deadline, often 60 to 90 days before trial. Briefing typically takes 30 days. Hearings are sometimes held. Daubert motions can fundamentally reshape a case by excluding key experts.

Summary judgment timing

Summary judgment motions under Rule 56 must usually be filed by a deadline set in the scheduling order, often 60 to 90 days before trial. Briefing typically extends over 30 to 45 days with response and reply briefs. The court may take additional time to rule. A successful summary judgment can dispose of the case before trial; an unsuccessful one preserves issues for appeal.

Expert witness disclosure timing

Federal Rule 26(a)(2) requires written expert reports at the time of disclosure. The reports must include the expert's opinions, the basis for the opinions, the data considered, the expert's qualifications, a list of prior testimony, and the compensation arrangement. Missing the disclosure deadline typically results in exclusion of the expert under Rule 37(c)(1), which can be case-fatal. Specialty maritime firms retain experts within 60 days of filing and prepare written reports well in advance of the deadline. Marine engineers, accident reconstructionists, life-care planners, economists, and treating physicians all typically testify in major maritime cases.

Mediation in federal maritime cases

Most federal districts handling maritime cases require or strongly encourage mediation before trial. The Eastern District of Louisiana and Southern District of Texas use court-ordered mediation programs with rosters of trained maritime mediators (typically retired federal judges or senior maritime practitioners). Mediation typically occurs in the final months before trial after discovery has produced enough information for realistic valuation. The mediation process itself takes one to three days and can lead to settlement of the case before the trial expense is incurred. Successful mediation rates in federal maritime cases run 70 to 80 percent.

Document production and electronic discovery

Maritime cases produce significant document discovery: vessel logs, maintenance records, training files, personnel records, communication records, and electronic data from vessel monitoring systems. The electronic discovery component has grown dramatically as vessels become more instrumented. A modern offshore supply vessel may have dozens of monitoring systems producing terabytes of data over the operating life of the vessel. Discovery requests must specify the systems and timeframes, and production typically takes 60 to 120 days for complex cases.

Section 20

Trial scheduling, continuances, and pretrial deadlines

20. Trial scheduling, continuances, and pretrial deadlines

The trial date is the gravitational center around which the entire case schedule revolves. Federal judges set trial dates in the initial scheduling order, typically 12 to 24 months out from the answer. The trial date drives the deadlines for expert disclosures, summary judgment, motions in limine, and pretrial filings. In major maritime jurisdictions like the Southern District of Texas and Eastern District of Louisiana, trial calendars are full and continuances are not freely granted.

The final 90 days before trial are typically the busiest period of the case. Pretrial motions in limine to exclude specific evidence are due, usually 30 to 60 days before trial. Jury instructions and verdict forms are submitted, often 30 days before trial. Witness lists and exhibit lists with stipulations about admissibility are due. Trial briefs summarize the legal theories. The pretrial order, which controls every aspect of the trial, is signed by the judge in the final weeks.

Continuances

Continuance requests are evaluated under the standard set in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which requires "good cause" to modify a scheduling order. Common grounds include witness unavailability, late-discovered evidence, settlement negotiations, and counsel scheduling conflicts. Courts grant some continuances, especially early in the case, but rarely on the eve of trial. A trial date that has been continued multiple times becomes effectively fixed in the judge's mind.

Trial-readiness checklist 90 days out

• All discovery complete (fact and expert depositions, written discovery responses).
• Daubert motions briefed and decided (or scheduled for decision).
• Summary judgment motions decided.
• Witness preparation begun for plaintiff and all plaintiff witnesses.
• Demonstrative evidence prepared (timelines, anatomical models, day-in-the-life videos).
• Pretrial order draft circulated among counsel.
• Settlement discussions intensified or mediation scheduled.
• Trial team logistics: hotel, transportation, equipment, support staff.

Maritime jury versus bench trial

Jones Act cases filed in state court or federal court (with diversity jurisdiction) can be tried to a jury. Pure admiralty cases (in rem actions, limitation petitions, general maritime claims without Jones Act) are typically bench trials. The choice between jury and bench affects scheduling because bench trials can usually be scheduled more flexibly with the judge.

Section 21

Appeal deadlines and post-judgment motions

21. Appeal deadlines and post-judgment motions

After trial concludes and the court enters judgment, the post-judgment phase begins. The losing party has several procedural options: a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) (renewed JMOL), a motion for new trial under Rule 59, or a notice of appeal under FRAP 3. Each has its own deadline. The standard appeal deadline is 30 days from entry of judgment in civil cases (60 days when the United States is a party).

Post-judgment motions filed within 28 days of judgment toll the appeal deadline. Under FRAP 4(a)(4), the appeal clock restarts when the post-judgment motion is decided. This creates a strategic choice: file the post-judgment motion to potentially win on Rule 50/59 grounds and toll the appeal, or skip the post-judgment motion and file the appeal directly. Most appellate counsel recommend the post-judgment motion approach because it preserves all grounds for appeal and gives the trial judge a chance to correct error.

Notice of appeal mechanics

The notice of appeal under FRAP 3 is a simple one- or two-page document filed in the district court (not the appellate court). It identifies the party appealing, the judgment being appealed, and the appellate court to which the appeal is being taken. Filing the notice is jurisdictional. Mistakes in the notice can defeat the appeal even if all substantive grounds are strong. The appellate fee (currently $605 in 2026) is paid at the time of filing.

Stay pending appeal

Filing the appeal does not automatically stay enforcement of the judgment. A losing defendant who wants to prevent execution on a money judgment during the appeal must post a supersedeas bond under Rule 62(b). The bond is typically 110 percent of the judgment amount plus interest. Bonds are expensive (bond fees typically 1 to 3 percent of the bond amount annually) but protect the defendant from immediate collection.

Briefing schedule

After the notice of appeal, the appellant has 40 days to file the opening brief (FRAP 31). The appellee has 30 days to respond. The appellant has 21 days to reply. Oral argument is typically scheduled 6 to 12 months after briefing closes. A typical federal civil appeal takes 12 to 24 months from notice to decision.

Circuit-specific appeal practices for maritime cases

The federal circuit courts most often hearing maritime appeals are the Fifth Circuit (covering Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, dominant in Gulf Coast maritime cases), the Eleventh Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, covering Atlantic and Gulf), the Ninth Circuit (Pacific Coast, including Alaska maritime cases), the Fourth Circuit (Virginia and the Carolinas), the Second Circuit (New York and Northeast), and the First Circuit (New England). Each circuit has developed its own body of maritime case law. The Fifth Circuit hears the largest volume of maritime cases by far and produces the most important precedent. Circuit splits on maritime doctrine occasionally lead to Supreme Court review.

Discretionary versus interlocutory appeals

Most appeals require a final judgment under the final-judgment rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Interlocutory appeals are available in limited circumstances: 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) explicitly allows interlocutory appeals from admiralty decrees determining rights and liabilities of the parties. This unusual provision means that maritime cases offer more interlocutory appeal opportunities than ordinary civil cases. Significant maritime rulings (limitation of liability decisions, unseaworthiness rulings, MMI determinations) can sometimes be appealed before final judgment under this rule.

Cost bonds and security for appellate costs

In addition to the supersedeas bond for stay pending appeal, appellate courts may require a cost bond under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7. The cost bond covers the appellee's potentially recoverable appellate costs (printing, filing fees, deposition transcripts used on appeal). The amount is typically $5,000 to $25,000 for ordinary civil appeals and can be higher for complex maritime appeals. Cost bonds are separate from the supersedeas bond and must be posted independently.

En banc review and Supreme Court certiorari

After a panel decision, the losing party may seek rehearing en banc by the full circuit court. En banc petitions are granted in less than 1 percent of cases. After exhausting circuit review, the losing party may petition the Supreme Court for certiorari within 90 days. The Supreme Court grants certiorari in less than 1 percent of petitions. Total appellate review through the Supreme Court can take 24 to 48 months from initial appeal. Most maritime cases resolve at the circuit court level.