Wallis v. Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. et al

Filing 175

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law herein, the Court finds that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the alleged accident occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the Cour t finds that the Defendants Royal Eagle Services, LLC, Hornbeck Offshore Trinidad and Tobago, L.L.C., and Hornbeck Offshore Operators, L.L.C. are entitled to judgment in their favor. The Court will enter a judgment to that effect by separate order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/23/2014.(Reference: 12-536)(bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LARIAN WALLIS,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 12-536
c/w 13-2538

HORNBECK OFFSHORE
OPERATORS, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION "E"

Applies to: 12-536
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiff, Larian Wallis (“Wallis”), brought a maritime personal injury claim
against his employer, Royal Eagle Services, LLC (“Royal Eagle”), vessel owner,
Hornbeck Offshore Trinidad and Tobago, L.L.C., and vessel operator, Hornbeck
Offshore Operators, L.L.C. (collectively “Hornbeck”). Plaintiff’s claims are brought
pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, and general maritime law for
unseaworthiness and negligence.
This matter was tried before the Court, sitting without a jury, over four days.1 The
Court heard testimony from Patrick Riggins, Steven Johnson, Kim Riggins, Larian
Wallis, Henry Daigle, Thomas Meunier, Dr. Randy Rice, Mark Percle, Edward Geoffrey
Webster, Todd Gentile, Tron Grogan, Grady Grey, Eronne Martin, Robert O’Neal Smith,
Christopher Osborne, George Andrade, Carla Seyler, Captain Richard Frenzel, Dr.
Mariusz Ziejewski, Kenneth Boudreaux, and Dr. Gordon Nutik and admitted into

R. Doc. 170, 171, 172, and 173 (minute entries for proceedings held on September 8, 9, 10, and 15 of 2014,
respectively).
1

1

evidence the depositions of Dr. John Heller and Captain Joe Deremer.2 Having
considered the testimony and evidence at trial, the arguments of counsel, and the
applicable law, the Court now issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). To the extent any findings
of fact may be construed as conclusions of law, the Court adopts them as such.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In May of 2009, Plaintiff Larian Wallis began working for Royal Eagle Services,
LLC as an offshore rigger. Royal Eagle is a Louisiana-based LLC supplying riggers to
companies operating offshore supply vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. The riggers are
assigned as members of the crew and are responsible for loading and unloading cargo.
Wallis worked with Royal Eagle through August of 2010, when he was laid off because of
the moratorium imposed on drilling following the BP oil spill. After having no luck
finding another job as a rigger, Wallis went home to Georgia and worked in the
manufacturing industry. During this time, Wallis was a member of a gym and became an
avid weight lifter. In late summer of 2011, Pat Riggins, the Operations Manager at Royal
Eagle, called Wallis in Georgia and offered to rehire him as a rigger. Wallis took the
position, and Royal Eagle flew him back to Louisiana.
The first assignment Wallis had upon returning to Royal Eagle was as a member
of the crew of the HOS CORNERSTONE, an offshore supply vessel owned by Hornbeck
Offshore Trinidad and Tobago, L.L.C. and operated by Hornbeck Offshore Operators,
L.L.C. Wallis boarded the vessel on August 3, 2011 and had no trouble carrying his
luggage aboard. While onboard, Wallis bragged to other members of the crew about his
ability to bench press over 400 pounds. Wallis worked his shifts as a rigger from August
2

R. Doc. 170, 171, 172, and 173.
2

3, 2011 until noon on August 7, 2011. Wallis’s bunkmate on the vessel was Tron Grogan.
Wallis slept in one of the upper bunks. The bunk beds aboard the HOS CORNERSTONE
are positioned athwartship. The original mattresses in the bunks had been replaced with
pillowtop mattresses, the tops of which were approximately even with the tops of the
wooden railings of the bunks.
Wallis worked the night shift on August 7, 2011 from midnight until noon. After
finishing his shift, Wallis ate, showered, and then went to bed in the top bunk. He does
not recall the exact time he retired to his bunkroom. At some time after noon but before
10:00 p.m., Wallis alleges he rolled out of the bunk and injured his back. He did not
report the incident to the captain immediately and instead went back to sleep for several
hours. He told the captain about the incident soon after his alarm went off at 10:00 p.m.
on August 7, 2011, and the captain directed Wallis to fill out a Hornbeck Offshore
Personal Injury or Illness Report. Wallis’s written statement included his claim that he
rolled out of the top bunk. Tron Grogan was in the bunkroom with Wallis at the time of
the alleged fall. That night, the seas were two to three feet.
Wallis stayed on the vessel until August 9, 2011, when he was flown by helicopter
to shore to see a doctor. Wallis reported to the nurse practitioner that he injured his
back when he fell out of his bunk. On August 9, 2011, Wallis also provided an Employee
Statement to Royal Eagle concerning the alleged incident, and Royal Eagle filed form
LS-202, Employer’s First Report of Injury, with the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of
Workers’ Compensation. On August 10, 2011, Royal Eagle created an incident report,
which was signed by Wallis. Since the alleged fall, Wallis has seen numerous doctors
and has had surgery on his back. Wallis has now reached maximum medical
improvement. Royal Eagle’s Maritime Employer’s Liability insurance carrier has paid

3

maintenance and cure to Wallis.
Wallis told his coworkers he injured his back while lifting weights prior to
boarding the vessel. Christopher Osborne saw Wallis taking Doan’s Pills for back pain
the day before getting on the boat. Crew members Tron Grogan and Eronne Martin saw
Wallis “walking slow” and “walking stiff” and opined that he “wasn’t himself” before the
day of the alleged fall.
The record in this case is replete with inconsistent testimony, including that of
Larian Wallis and Tron Grogan.3 In his deposition and trial testimony, Wallis waffled as
to what portion of his back he injured as a result of the fall and whether he had prior
back injuries or back pain. When cross-examined at trial by counsel for Defendant
Hornbeck, Wallis first testified he could not recall whether he hit the middle or the
lower part of his back when he fell out of the bunk. But when asked just eight minutes
later during the same line of questioning whether he landed on his tailbone or hit his
back elsewhere, Wallis testified he was pretty sure he landed on his tailbone. Counsel for
Hornbeck pointed to Wallis’s deposition transcript: when asked the same question at his
deposition, Wallis responded that he could not recall where he hit his back when he fell.
Once counsel pointed to his deposition testimony, Wallis reverted to the position that he
could not recall whether or not he landed on his tailbone. Wallis also gave inconsistent
answers at trial as to why he shared his history of back injuries with some doctors but
not others. Wallis said at trial that the Captain gave him some medicine after the
accident, Tylenol he believed, but at his deposition, Wallis testified that he could not
recall whether he took any medicine onboard the vessel. Wallis also testified at trial that
he took some medicine at the hotel after his visit to the doctor on August 9, 2011, but at
Tron Grogan, Wallis’s bunkmate, testified that Wallis said he would pay Tron money to say he saw
Wallis fall out of the bunk. Because of inconsistencies, the Court gives no weight to Grogan’s testimony.
3

4

his deposition, Wallis testified that he could not recall whether he took any medicine at
that time. In many instances, Wallis remembered more details at trial than during his
deposition. Generally, one forgets details as time passes—not recalls more details later
on.
At trial, Wallis testified his back was swollen after the incident and he thought he
had abrasions on his lower back but only because he saw it on a doctor’s report.
However, the medical records presented at trial do not corroborate Wallis’s testimony.
The nurse practitioner who saw Wallis on August 9, 2011, less than 48 hours after the
alleged incident, noted that Wallis was “ambulating with a steady gate” and was “in no
acute distress.”4 Further, “[t]here [was] no visible trauma to any part of his back,” and
he was “non-tender to palpation.”5
During the trial, Wallis admitted to lying on his Royal Eagle employment
application about having graduated from high school and the length of time he knew his
employment references. Wallis also admitted on the stand that he misrepresented his
educational history on his application to work for Clarion Metals by stating that he
received his high school diploma when he had not. Additionally, on the Clarion Metals
application he stated he had never been fired from employment, and during his
deposition, Wallis testified he had never been fired from a job. At trial, though, Wallis
said his memory had been refreshed about his being fired from both Bollinger and
Flambeau when these companies were brought to his attention. But Wallis was
specifically asked about both Bollinger and Flambeau during his deposition, and Wallis
testified then he had not been fired by either employer. On the stand, Wallis’s
Exhibit 37-42.
Id. The records do corroborate Wallis’s testimony that he told the nurse he injured his back because he
rolled out of the bunk.
4
5

5

explanation was that he must not have remembered at that time. Additionally, when
asked at his deposition about the vessel he worked on prior to the HOS
CORNERSTONE, Wallis testified he could not recall whether the beds on that vessel had
railings. At trial, though, Wallis testified he remembered the vessel had hand rails that
came up about three inches over the mattresses. Finally, Wallis was charged and
convicted of giving a false name to a law enforcement official about ten years ago,
further damaging his credibility.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On February 28, 2012, Wallis filed suit, bringing claims under the Jones Act and
general maritime law against Royal Eagle and Hornbeck for negligence and
unseaworthiness.6 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1333, which confers on the federal district courts original jurisdiction over
admiralty and maritime claims. Venue is proper in this district because the Court has
personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.
“[T]he plaintiff in a personal injury action bears the burden to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that there was in fact an accident.” 7 Provided the seaman
meets his burden of proving an accident occurred, a claim arises under the Jones Act, 46
U.S.C. § 30104, when a seaman’s employer breaches its duty to provide a reasonably
safe place to work8 and that breach is the “legal cause” of the seaman’s injury.9 “‘If the
defendant’s negligence played any part, however small, in producing the seaman’s
R. Doc. 1.
Stanfield v. Velvet Marine Contractors, Inc., No. 88-5542, 1990 WL 41905, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 1990)
(Mitchell, J.). See also In re Wilson Marine Transporters, No. 98-2938, 2001 WL 823735, at *1 (E.D. La.
July 19, 2001) (Duval, J.) (finding that “the claimant failed to meet his burden of proving an accident by a
preponderance of the evidence” and dismissing his case).
8 Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 374 (5th Cir. 1989); Simmons v. Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc., 551 F. Supp. 2d 471, 475 (E.D. La. 2008).
9 Gavagan v. United States, 955 F.2d 1016, 1020 (5th Cir. 1992).
6
7

6

injury, it results in liability.’”10 “To establish a claim of unseaworthiness, ‘the injured
seaman must prove that the [vessel] owner has failed to provide a vessel, including her
equipment and crew, which is reasonably fit and safe for the purposes for which it is to
be used.’”11 A plaintiff raising a claim of unseaworthiness must also “‘establish a causal
connection between his injury and the breach of duty that rendered the vessel
unseaworthy.’”12 “There is a more demanding standard of causation in an
unseaworthiness claim than in a Jones Act negligence claim. . . . [A] plaintiff must prove
that the unseaworthy condition played a substantial part in bringing about or actually
causing the injury and that the injury was either a direct result or a reasonably probable
consequence of the unseaworthiness.”13
Thus, to recover under either theory, Wallis first had the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the incident, in fact, occurred.14 As detailed above in
the findings of fact, Wallis’s testimony was littered with inconsistencies between his
deposition and trial testimony. Instances of his lying on employment applications, and
to law enforcement officials, also were brought to the attention of the Court. The
testimony of Wallis was so thoroughly impeached and contradicted at trial that it is
unreliable. The Court is of the opinion that Wallis’s credibility, or lack thereof, is
decisive to the resolution of this instant case. The Court does not credit the version of
the incident offered by Plaintiff, and there was no evidence presented at trial that
Martinez v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc., 481 F. App’x 942, 945 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Brister
v. A.W.I., Inc., 946 F.2d 350, 354 (5th Cir. 1991)).
11 Boudreaux v. United States, 280 F.3d 461, 468 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Jackson v. OMI Corp., 245
F.3d 525, 527 (5th Cir. 2001)).
12 Id. (quoting Jackson, 245 F.3d at 527).
13 Johnson v. Offshore Exp., Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1354 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Smith v. Trans-World
Drilling Co., 772 F.2d 157, 162 (5th Cir. 1985); Landry v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 731 F.2d 299, 302
(5th Cir. 1984); Alverez v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 674 F.2d 1037, 1042–43 (5th Cir. 1982)).
14 See Stanfield v. Velvet Marine Contractors, Inc., No. 88-5542, 1990 WL 41905, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 2,
1990) (Mitchell, J.); In re Wilson Marine Transporters, No. 98-2938, 2001 WL 823735, at *1 (E.D. La.
July 19, 2001) (Duval, J.).
10

7

corroborates his story other than his self-serving statements reported to his employer
and doctors about an alleged fall and injuries.15 Based on Wallis’s lack of credibility, the
lack of corroborating evidence or testimony at trial, combined with the testimony of
other witnesses who said he injured his back lifting weights, the Court finds the Plaintiff
has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he fell out of his bunk on the
vessel and injured his back. Because the Court finds Wallis failed to meet this threshold
burden, the Court need not determine whether Royal Eagle was negligent or Hornbeck’s
vessel was unseaworthy.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court finds that
the Plaintiff failed to establish that the alleged accident occurred by a preponderance of
the evidence. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendants Royal Eagle Services,
LLC, Hornbeck Offshore Trinidad and Tobago, L.L.C., and Hornbeck Offshore
Operators, L.L.C. are entitled to judgment in their favor. The Court will enter a
judgment to that effect by separate order.

23rd
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of December, 2014.

_______ _______ __________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

The Court notes that it gave no weight to Tron Grogan’s testimony because of his lack of credibility.
8