In the 1942 case of O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., the United States Supreme Court ruled that a seaman who becomes ill or is injured while in service to a ship, regardless of whether it was due to negligence or unseaworthiness, can recover maintenance and cure from his employer. Maintenance refers to living expenses during recovery, while cure refers to medical costs. The plaintiff, John O’Donnell had been employed by Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company as a deckhand on one of its dredges when he fell and sustained injuries which resulted in an infection leading to tuberculosis. He sued for damages under maritime law claiming negligence and unseaworthiness but also sought compensation for maintenance and cure even though there was no proof that his illness arose out of his employment or conditions aboard ship. The court held that the right to maintenance and cure does not depend upon any act of negligence or fault on part of the owner but arises from contract implied in law as incident to status as seamen; hence Mr.O'Donnell's claim was valid irrespective if injury occurred due company's fault.

In the dissenting opinion for O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of maritime law, which traditionally provided seamen with special protections due to their exposure to unique perils and hardships. He contended that by denying recovery under both state workmen’s compensation laws and federal maritime law, the Court left injured workers without adequate remedies. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to provide clear guidance on when an injury is considered as having occurred upon "navigable waters" in order for federal jurisdiction to apply. This lack of clarity could lead lower courts into confusion and inconsistency in future cases involving similar circumstances.