to but one recovery, whether his injury was due to one or the other of several distinct acts of alleged negligence or to a combination or some or all of them. In either view, there would be but a single wrongful invasion of a single primary right of the plaintiff, namely, the right of bodily safety, whether the acts constituting such invasion were one or many, simple or complex. Id. at 1023 (quoting Baltimore Steamship Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316, 321, 47 S.Ct. 600, 71 L.Ed. 1069 (1927)). Likewise, the Fifth Circuit’s case law provides that an unseaworthiness claim joined with a Jones Act claim for negligence is un under the Jones Act and general maritime law stemming from injuries to his head, neck, back, and left leg while working on the Kanawha F.Supp. 597, 605
holding that general maritime law preempts state law holding that joinder of a nonremovable jones act claim with a removable claim under general maritime law that is not separate and independent is not grounds for removal holding that general maritime and unseaworthiness claims brought in state court are removable to federal court only if they constitute separate and independent claims or causes of action in relation to the nonremovable jones act claim holding that although claims asserted under the general maritime law of unseaworthiness are removable when diversity exists they cannot be removed when combined with a claim under the jones act holding punitive damages not recoverable for retaliatory discharge claim under general maritime law