Stalvey et al v. United States Of America

Filing 88

ORDER denying 78 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 07/23/2020. (MG)

Case 5:18-cv-00019-LGW-BWC Document 88 Filed 07/23/20 Page 1 of 5
FILED
John E. Triplett, Acting Clerk
United States District Court

In the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
Waycross Division

By MGarcia at 2:45 pm, Jul 23, 2020

DONALD IVEY STALVEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 5:18-cv-19

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Donald Stalvey’s Motion for
Reconsideration. Dkt. No. 78.

This motion is fully briefed by the

parties, dkt. nos. 80, 82, and is ripe for review. The facts and
procedural background of this case are largely detailed in the
Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the Court’s “prior
Order”). Dkt. No. 77. At present, Plaintiff moves this Court to
reconsider its award to him, contending this Court “was operating
under the mistaken conclusion that there was no evidence that Mr.
Stalvey currently had any disability rating or permanent injury”
and “overlooked” testimony regarding Plaintiff’s alleged permanent
disability rating and maximum medical improvement offered by his
treating physician, Dr. Hellman. Dkt. No. 78-1 at 2-3. Otherwise,
Plaintiff contends, the Court would have awarded Mr. Stalvey more

Case 5:18-cv-00019-LGW-BWC Document 88 Filed 07/23/20 Page 2 of 5

money. Id. at 3. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s
Motion is DENIED.
To successfully move the Court for reconsideration under Rule
59(e), the moving party must demonstrate: (1) an intervening change
in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, or (3)
the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Estate of Pidcock By and Through Pidcock v. Sunnyland Am., Inc.,
726 F. Supp. 1322, 1333 (S.D. Ga. 1989). 1 To grant such a motion,
the movant must “demonstrate why the court should reconsider its
decision and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” United States
v. Battle, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1357 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). The decision to grant a motion
for reconsideration rests within the sound discretion of the
district court. Fla. Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of
Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehab Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1216 (11th
Cir. 2000).
Importantly, Rule 59(e) is not a means to “relitigate old
matters, or to raise arguments or to present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping
Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008). Instead, the movant

1

Plaintiff asks this Court to review his motion under either Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Rule 59(e) is the
appropriate tool available to Plaintiff at this stage (and renders an analysis
under Rule 60 unnecessary). See Brown v. Spells, No. 7:11-cv-91, 2011 WL 4543905
at *1 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2011).

2

Case 5:18-cv-00019-LGW-BWC Document 88 Filed 07/23/20 Page 3 of 5

must “demonstrate why the court should reconsider its decision and
set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce
the court to reverse its prior decision.” United States v. Battle,
272 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1357 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (internal quotations
and citations omitted). Moreover, a motion for reconsideration is
not an opportunity to instruct this Court on how it ”could have
done . . . better the first time.” Pres. Endangered Areas of Cobb's
History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 916 F. Supp. 1557,
1560 (N.D. Ga. 1995) (procedural history and internal quotations
omitted).
Here, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred because it found
“no evidence” that Mr. Stalvey, at the time of trial, had a
permanent disability rating or permanent injury and otherwise
“overlooked” evidence establishing Mr. Stalvey had a permanent
disability and reached maximum medical improvement. Dkt. No. 78-1
at 2-3. Apart from being unsupported by the evidence presented at
trial, these arguments do not offer any new facts previously
undiscovered, bring to light an applicable change in the law, nor
do they demonstrate that without amendment this Court’s prior Order
was manifestly unjust. Therefore, they are insufficient to induce
the Court to reconsider its prior Order under Rule 59(e).
More pointedly, Plaintiff’s arguments fail because they are,
at best, reassertions of arguments and evidence first presented at
trial that he now contends demonstrate the Court “could have done

3

Case 5:18-cv-00019-LGW-BWC Document 88 Filed 07/23/20 Page 4 of 5

better” by awarding him more money. See Pres. Cobb's History, 916
F. Supp. at 1560. Plaintiff believes the only reason the Court
awarded him $68,716.33 in damages (and not more) is because the
Court overlooked certain pieces of evidence Plaintiff presented at
trial. Plaintiff is incorrect. The Court awarded Plaintiff the
compensatory damages he proved at trial. No more and no less.
Plaintiff did not sufficiently prove the amount of his future
medical expenses, so he was not entitled to such compensation under
Georgia law. Further, Plaintiff did not sufficiently prove that he
had a permanent disability rating of five percent or that he
reached

maximum

medical

improvement

because

he

presented

no

testimony deemed sufficiently reliable or credible to carry his
burden. Both at trial and in his motion for reconsideration,
Plaintiff attempts to convince the Court that general evidence of
disability

ratings

for

hypothetical

patients

who

qualify

for

anterior cervical discectomy surgery and broad explanations of
maximum

improvement

status

establish

conclusively

Plaintiff’s

disability rating of five percent and maximum improvement status.
These arguments did not persuade the Court at trial, and the Court
remains unpersuaded. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, dkt.
no. 78, is DENIED.

4

Case 5:18-cv-00019-LGW-BWC Document 88 Filed 07/23/20 Page 5 of 5

SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of July, 2020.

HON. LISA GODBEY WOOD, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

5