to send a copy of this order to counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant. It is so ORDERED. 1 . Congressional intent does not aid analysis of the Jones Act. Unlike the Death on the High Seas Act (“DOHSA"), 46 U.S.C.A.App. §§ 761-768 (West 1975), which limits damages to pecuniary losses, 46 U.S.C.A.App. § 762 (West 1975), the Jones Act does not limit damages to any particular form, Miles, 498 U.S. at 32, 111 S.Ct. at 325-26; see also Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U.S. 618, 625, 98 S.Ct. 2010, 2015, 56 L.Ed.2d 581 (1978) (“There is a basic difference between filling a gap left by Congress' silence and rewriting rules that Congress has affirmatively and specifically enacted.”). 2 . The Supreme Court voiced the same concern in earlier maritime cases n. 3 (E.D.Va.1993) (<HOLDING>). 4 . One argument against recovery of punitive
holding punitive damages not recoverable under 2715 holding that punitive damages are recoverable in a claim for retaliation under the flsa holding punitive damages unavailable for survival claims under general maritime law holding punitive damages not recoverable for retaliatory discharge claim under general maritime law holding punitive damages available for retaliatory claim under flsa