Walker v. Pioneer Production Services, Inc. et al

Filing 114

ORDER denying 110 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 111 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/11/16. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL WALKER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-0645

PIONEER PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., ET AL

SECTION A(5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 110) filed by Plaintiff Michael
Walker. The motion, set for submission on July 27, 2016, is before the Court on the briefs without oral
argument. The Court is granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite (Rec. Doc. 111), and it will consider
the motion before its submission date. This matter is set to be tried to a jury beginning on August 1,
2016.
Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider the order issued on July 6, 2016 (Rec. Doc. 107). In
this order, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude All
Evidence, Testimony, and Attorney Reference Relating to This Court’s Prior Ruling on Pioneer’s
McCorpen Defense. The order instructed the parties to enter into a stipulation regarding Plaintiff’s
choice to not oppose the specific prongs as enunciated by McCorpen. The order further stated that
Defendants may bring this stipulation to the attention of the jury. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration based
on the fact that Plaintiff has reached a settlement with his Jones Act employer, Pioneer Production
Services, Inc. Defendants Hornbeck Offshore Trinidad and Tobago, LLC, and Hornbeck Offshore
Operators, LLC, (collectively “Horneck”) oppose the instant motion. Hornbeck asserts that the
McCorpen prongs are relevant to Hornbeck’s comparative fault defense.

The Court analyzes a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Such a motion may be
granted on four grounds: “(1) to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which judgment is
based, (2) the availability of new evidence, (3) the need to prevent manifest injustice, or (4) an

1

intervening change in controlling law.” Lines v. Fairfield Ins. Co., No. 08–1045, 2010 WL
4338636, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 21, 2010) (citing Peterson v. Cigna Group Ins., No. 99–2112, 2002
WL 1268404, at *2 (E.D. La. June 5, 2002). “The Court enjoys considerable discretion in granting
or denying such a motion, and an amendment of judgment is an extraordinary remedy which must
be used sparingly and should not be used to re-litigate old matters, raise new arguments, or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Gabarick v. Laurin Mar.
(America) Inc., No. 08–4007, 2010 WL 5437391, at *5 (E.D. La. Dec. 23, 2010) (citing Boyd’s
Bit Serv., Inc. v. Specialty Rental Tool & Supply, Inc., 332 F.Supp.2d 938, 939 (W.D. La 2004)).
The Court finds that none of the four grounds are met here. A stipulation would still be
relevant to Plaintiff’s credibility and to Hornbeck’s comparative fault defense. See Ramirez v. Am.
Pollution Control Corp., 364 F. App’x 856, 858 (5th Cir. 2010) (“This court has recognized the
propriety of holding a seaman plaintiff contributorily negligent when he ‘has concealed material
information about a pre-existing injury or physical condition from his employer; exposes his body
to a risk of reinjury or aggravation of the condition; and then suffers reinjury or aggravation
injury.’”) (quoting Johnson v. Cenac Towing, Inc., 544 F.3d 296, 303-04 (5th Cir. 2008)).
The stipulation, however, should include a disclaimer as it regards the third prong of
McCorpen. The third prong of McCorpen asks whether there was a “causal link” between the
concealed pre-existing injury and the employment injury. McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship
Corp., 396 F. 2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1968). Despite the “causal link” language, courts have held
that this prong is met upon a mere showing that “the old injury and the new injury affected the
same body part.” See Johnson, 544 F.3d at 728. Thus, the stipulation can make clear that, regarding
the third McCorpen prong, Plaintiff concedes only that the concealed pre-existing injury and the

2

employment injury regarded the same body part; Plaintiff does not concede that his concealment
caused his work injury.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 110) is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Expedite Motion for Reconsideration
(Rec. Doc. 111) is GRANTED, as the Court considered this motion on an expedited basis.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of July, 2016

__________________________________
JUDGE JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3