The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
REGINALD ROBERT CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 18-11632
JAMIE MAURICE, ET AL. SECTION: “G”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Reginald Robert’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Medical Causation.”1 In the instant motion, Plaintiff urges this Court to grant partial
summary judgment in his favor, finding that Plaintiff’s injuries and medical treatment were
caused by the automobile accident at issue in this litigation.2 Defendants Jamie Maurice
(“Maurice”) and Knight Transportation, Inc. (“Knight Transportation”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) oppose the motion.3 Considering the motion, the memoranda in support and in
opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court denies the motion.
I. Background
On November 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants in this Court,
seeking recovery for injuries and property damage Plaintiff allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle
collision.4 According to the Complaint, on August 9, 2017, Plaintiff was allegedly operating a
1 Rec. Doc. 160.
2 Id.
3 Rec. Doc. 164.
4 Rec. Doc. 1.
vehicle on US 90 while an 18-wheeler driven by Maurice was attempting to merge onto US 90
from the onramp.5 Plaintiff alleges that Maurice negligently failed to keep a proper lookout and
abruptly merged into the third lane of US 90 where Plaintiff was traveling, causing a collision
between the two vehicles.6 Plaintiff alleges that Maurice was driving a vehicle owned by Knight
Transportation and that Maurice was within the course and scope of his employment with Knight
Transportation when he collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle.7 Accordingly, Plaintiff brings a
negligence claim against Maurice and against Knight Transportation under the doctrine of
respondeat superior.8
On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Medical
Causation.”9 On April 15, 2020, the Court denied the motion as untimely without reaching the
merits of the motion.10 On April 16, 2020, the trial in this matter was continued to April 26, 2021
due to the COVID-19 pandemic.11 On January 14, 2021, General Order 21-1 continued all jury
trials in this district, including the April 26, 2021 trial in this matter, until after May 1, 2021. On
January 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave of Court to File Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Issue of Causation.”12 On January 27, 2021, the Court granted the
5 Id. at 3.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 5.
9 Rec. Doc. 85.
10 Rec. Doc. 100.
11 Rec. Doc. 101.
12 Rec. Doc. 154.
motion for leave to file.13
On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment.14 On
January 28, 2021, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion.15
II. Parties’ Arguments
A. Plaintiff’s Arguments in Support of the Motion
Plaintiff argues that summary judgment is appropriate on the issue of causation because
“all of the medical evidence and testimony in this case unequivocally and conclusively prove that
[Plaintiff] was, in all medical probability, injured as a result of the November 28, 2017 accident
which gave rise to this litigation.”16 Plaintiff argues that three physicians have provided affidavits
confirming that the accident at issue in this case caused Plaintiff’s injuries, in direct contrast to
Defendants who did not retain any experts to dispute medical causation and did not depose any
of Plaintiff’s experts.17 Plaintiff contends that because there are “no competing theories of
medical causation,” this Court should grant summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on the issue
of causation.18
B. Defendants’ Arguments in Opposition to the Motion
Defendants contend that summary judgment is inappropriate because a question of fact
remains as to whether Plaintiff was injured in the alleged accident with Defendants.19 Defendants
13 Rec. Doc. 158.
14 Rec. Doc. 160.
15 Rec. Doc. 164.
16 Rec. Doc. 160-1 at 1.
17 Id. at 2, 4.
18 Id. at 5.
19 Rec. Doc. 164.
point to multiple pieces of evidence that Defendants allege cast doubt on Plaintiff’s causation
claim. First, Defendants aver that Plaintiff’s medical records show that Plaintiff was injured not
in the collision with Defendants, but in prior automobile accidents.20 Defendants further allege
that the doctors who treated Plaintiff following the alleged accident with Defendants were “well-
familiar with the litigation landscape and indeed Plaintiff’s counsel.”21 Defendants argue that a
jury “is entitled to believe Plaintiff’s counsel’s chose[n] doctors are bias[ed] or at a minimum that
Plaintiff has not told them the truth” concerning his injuries.22
In addition, Defendants claim that both the body camera footage of the officer investigating
the alleged accident and statements made by Plaintiff in the police report cast further doubt on
Plaintiff’s claim that he was injured in the alleged accident with Defendants.23 Because of
questions surrounding causation, Defendants contend, Plaintiff has not met his burden for
summary judgment.24
III. Legal Standard on a Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits
demonstrate “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.”25 To decide whether a genuine dispute as to any material fact exists, the court
considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrains from making credibility determinations
20 Id. at 2.
21 Id. at 3.
22 Id. at 4.
23 Id. at 5.
24 Id.
25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).
or weighing the evidence.”26 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.
Yet “unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ‘ultimate or conclusory facts and
conclusions of law’ are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment.”27
If the entire record “could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party,” then
no genuine issue of fact exists and, consequently, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.28 The nonmoving party may not rest upon the pleadings.29 Instead, the nonmoving
party must identify specific facts in the record and articulate the precise manner in which that
evidence establishes a genuine issue for trial.30
The party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of showing
the basis for its motion and identifying record evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact.31 Where the nonmovant bears the burden of proof at trial, “the movant may
either (1) submit evidentiary documents that negate the existence of some material element of the
opponent’s claim or defense, or (2) if the crucial issue is one on which the opponent will bear the
ultimate burden of proof at trial, demonstrate that the evidence in the record insufficiently
supports an essential element of the opponent’s claim or defense.”32 If the moving party satisfies
26 Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398–99 (5th Cir. 2008).
27 Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985); Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.
28 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
29 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
30 See id.; Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998).
31 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
32 Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 190 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Little, 939 F.2d at 1299).
its initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to “identify specific evidence in the
record, and to articulate” precisely how that evidence supports the nonmoving party’s claims.33
However, “where the movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant ‘must establish
beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense to warrant judgment in
his favor. Once the movant does so, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to establish an issue of
fact that warrants trial.’”34 “The nonmoving party can then defeat the motion by either countering
with sufficient evidence of its own, or “showing that the moving party’s evidence is so sheer that
it may not persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the moving party.”35
IV. Analysis
In this litigation, Plaintiff brings a negligence claim against Defendants. Plaintiff bears
the burden of proving all elements of his negligence claim, including causation, at trial. Therefore,
in order to succeed on the instant motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff “must establish beyond
peradventure” that the alleged accident at issue caused his injuries.36 Under Louisiana law, “[t]he
test for determining the causal relationship between the accident and subsequent injury is whether
the plaintiffs prove through medical testimony that it is more probable than not that the subsequent
injuries were caused by the accident.”37 If Plaintiff meets his initial burden on the motion for
33 Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 871 (1994); see also Morris
v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 1998).
34 Lyons v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist., 964 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 2020).
35 Ridgeway v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 09-2794, 2010 WL 1729187, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 27, 2010) (Vance, J.).
36 Lyons, 964 F.3d at 302.
37 Ridgeway, 2010 WL 1729187, at *2.
summary judgment, “the burden shifts to [Defendants] to establish an issue of fact that warrants
trial.”38
Plaintiff argues that summary judgment is appropriate on the issue of causation in the
instant case because Plaintiff has presented affidavits from three medical experts who state that
Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the alleged accident with Defendants, while Defendants have
failed to provide any contradictory expert testimony or to depose Plaintiff’s experts. In response,
Defendants argue that summary judgment is inappropriate because evidence, including Plaintiff’s
medical records, police body camera footage, and the police report of the alleged accident, creates
a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff was, in fact, injured in the accident at issue
in this litigation.
Under Louisiana law, “[a] defendant takes his victim as he finds him and he is responsible
for all the natural and probable consequences of his tortious conduct. Where the defendant’s
negligent action aggravates a pre-existing injury, he must compensate the victim for the full extent
of this aggravation.”39 Therefore, Defendants’ claims that Plaintiff injured his neck and back in
previous automobile accidents, even if true, is not a bar to recovery in the instant case.
However, Plaintiff’s burden on the instant motion is high, as he must “establish beyond
peradventure” 40 that “it is more probable than not that the subsequent injuries were caused by the
accident.”41 Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden and summary judgment is thus inappropriate.
While Plaintiff’s past injuries are not a bar to recovery, Defendants remain free to argue to the
38 Id.
39 Perniciaro v. Brinch, 384 So. 2d 392, 395–96 (La. 1980).
40 Lyons, 964 F.3d at 302.
41 Ridgeway, 2010 WL 1729187, at *2.
jury that the accident at issue did not aggravate Plaintiff’s preexisting conditions. Defendants
obtained certified medical records from medical providers who previously treated Plaintiff and
listed those providers as witnesses for trial.*
Plaintiff argues that Defendants cannot defeat summary judgment because they have not
retained an expert to dispute medical causation. Expert testimony is required to establish
causation only when “the question of medical causation is complex and not within the knowledge
of an ordinary lay person.” Plaintiffs theory of causation in the instant case “is not so complex
as to be outside the knowledge of lay factfinders” and thus, Defendants do not need a retained
medical expert to testify on their behalf.4° Therefore, because there is a genuine issue of fact as
to causation, summary judgment is inappropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Reginald Robert’s “Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Medical Causation”* is DENIED.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 14th day of May, 2021.
NANNETTE JOZIVETTE BROWN _
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
” Rec. Doc. 164 at 2; Rec. Doc. 164-3; Rec. Doc. 164-5.
* Rec. Doc. 162.
“ Anh Ngoc Vo vy. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., No. 12-1341, 2014 WL 3401095, at *2 (E.D. La. July 11, 2014)
(Engelhardt, J.).
* Bratkowski v. Aspen Ins. UK, Ltd., No. 15-294, 2016 WL 2901655, at *4 (E.D. La. May 18, 2016)
(Feldman, J.).
“© Rec. Doc. 160.