Pittman v. KBRwyle Technology Solutions, LLC

Filing 40

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the 16 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 1/16/2018.(jls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
AARON M. PITTMAN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-00541

KBRWYLE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC

SECTION “B”(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Kbrwyle Technology Solutions’
(“Defendant”)

”Motion

for

Summary

Judgment”

(Rec.

Doc.

16),

Plaintiff Aaron Pittman’s (“Plaintiff”) Response (Rec. Doc. 25),
and Defendant’s Reply (Rec. Doc. 34). For the reasons discussed
below,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec.
Doc. 16) is DENIED.
I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises from an alleged incident that occurred on

February 12, 2016, aboard the USNS PFC Dewayne T. Williams (“The
Williams”). Rec. Doc. 16-3. At the time of the alleged incident,
Plaintiff was working aboard The Williams as an ordinance mechanic.
Id. Plaintiff sustained injury to his left shoulder while moving
tank batteries between decks. Plaintiff further alleges that he
sustained injury to his right shoulder during the same February
12, 2016, incident. Rec. Doc. 25-1. Plaintiff further claims that
Defendant acted negligently in relation to such incident.

Plaintiff’s initial complaint to Defendant and his healthcare
providers was with regard to pain in his left shoulder. Rec. Docs.
16-3 and 25-1. Immediately after the incident, Plaintiff informed
his supervisor of the incident via email correspondence (“the
email”). Rec. Doc. 16-1 at 2. Plaintiff made no mention of his
right shoulder in that email. See “Exhibit B” Rec. Doc. 16-2, at
35. Shortly after sending said email, Plaintiff was brought ashore
to Saipan where he received treatment in the emergency room at the
Commonwealth Health Center. Rec. Doc. 16-2, at 36-39. Similar to
the email, Plaintiff informed ER providers on February 12th that
he felt “shooting pain” from his left shoulder down his arm. Id.
He underwent an x-ray on his left arm, which revealed no fractures
or dislocations, was diagnosed with a left shoulder strain and
given a sling. Id. Pittman returned to work on February 15, 2016,
and after preparing an incident report, he returned to his regular
duties. Rec. Docs. 16-3 and 25-1.
In June of 2016, Pittman reported “right shoulder pain for
past two (2) weeks” to psychiatrist, Dr. Norma Ada. Rec. Doc. 254.

Dr.

Ada’s

notes

provide

that

Plaintiff

related

the

right

shoulder pain to the February 12, 2016, incident, where he was
pulling a heavy load using a pulley system and the load suddenly
jerked. Id. Eventually, the pain in Plaintiff’s right shoulder
became so severe he was unable to continue his regular duties
aboard

The

Williams.

On

October

4,

2016,

Dr.

Elliot

Nipper

performed an arthroscopic labral repair surgery on Plaintiff’s
right shoulder. Rec. Doc. 16-3. On December 7, 2016, Dr. Nipper
released Plaintiff back to work with no restrictions. Rec. Doc.
25-1 at 10.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff lacks requisite medical
testimony to meet his burden of establishing the causal link
between

his

incident.

right

shoulder

injury

and

the

February

12,

2016

Rec. Doc. 16.

Plaintiff argues that he has met his burden of proof for
causation under the Jones Act. Rec. Doc. 25.
II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery

and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court
should view all facts and evidence in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party. United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hixson Bros. Inc.,
453 F.3d 283, 285 (5th Cir. 2006). Mere conclusory allegations are
insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d
1322, 1325 (5th Cir. 1996).
Under 46 U.S.C.A. § 688 (the “Jones Act”), a seaman's employer
is liable for damages if the employer's negligence caused the
seaman's injury. See Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d

331, 335 (5th Cir.1997). A seaman may prevail in a Jones Act action
if he shows that “employer negligence played any part, even the
slightest, in producing the injury ... for which damages are
sought.” Id. at 335. In a Jones Act case the burden of the plaintiff
to prove causation is “very light.” Martin v. John W. Stone Oil
Distrib., Inc., 819 F.2d 547, 548 (5th Cir. 1987). The jury is
entitled to make permissible inferences from unexplained events.
Id.
Here, while there is a four (4) month gap in the medical
testimony between the date of the alleged incident and Plaintiff’s
report of injury to his right shoulder, that gap is not sufficient
to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under the Jones’ Act’s burden for
causation. Under the Jones Act it is sufficient to establish a
jury question by simply showing some negligence on the part of the
employer coupled by direct or circumstantial evidence to the injury
or death of an employee. Gaymon v. Quinn Menhaden Fisheries of
Tex., Inc., 118 So. 2d 42, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960).

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of January, 2018.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE