Cook v. United Airlines, Inc. et al

Filing 58

ORDER: Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff has not presented medical causation for her injuries. Taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Defendant's Motion is granted. Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Signed on 06/17/2009 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) Modified on 6/19/2009 (cw).

FIWl'09 J~ 17146~-am

I N T H E UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N

C E C E L I A A. C O O K

Case C V 08-3073-CL

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
U N I T E D A I R L I N E S , INC., Defendant.

C L A R K E , M a g i s t r a t e Judge. P l a i n t i f f C e c e l i a C o o k ( " P l a i n t i f f ' ) filed this c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t U n i t e d A i r l i n e s ("Defendant") claiming that Defendant's negligent acts resulted i n various personal injuries. P l a i n t i f f is a r e s i d e n t o f O r e g o n . D e f e n d a n t is a f o r e i g n c o r p o r a t i o n i n c o r p o r a t e d i n D e l a w a r e w i t h a p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s i n l l l i n o i s . T h e a m o u n t i n c o n t r o v e r s y e x c e e d s $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 as P l a i n t i f f s e e k s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 1 1 , 3 0 0 i n d a m a g e s for m e d i c a l c o s t s a n d $ 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 i n d a m a g e s for p a i n a n d suffering. T h i s court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. D e f e n d a n t h a s f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t (#26). F o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h b e l o w , t h e C o u r t grants Defendant's motion.

Order 1

I.

Standards
P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 56(c), s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t " s h o u l d b e rendered, i f t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e

discovery and disclosure materials o n file, and a n y affidavits show that there is n o genuine issue as to a n y material fact and that the movant i s entitled to j u d g m e n t as a matter o f l a w . " Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); s e e Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 291 F.3d 632, 6 3 6 (9th Cir. 2002). T h e c o u r t cannot w e i g h t h e evidence o r d e t e n n i n e t h e truth b u t m a y o n l y determine w h e t h e r there i s a genuine issue o f fact. Playboy Enters .· Inc. v. Welles, 279 F . 3 d 7 9 6 , 8 0 0 (9th Cir. 2002). A n i s s u e o f fact i s g e n u i n e " ' i f the e v i d e n c e i s such t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e j u r y c o u l d r e t u r n a verdict for the n o n m o v i n g party.'" Villiarimo v. A l o h a Island Air, Inc., 281 F .3d 1054, 1061 (9 th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 ( 1 9 8 6 » . T h e m o v i n g p a r t y m u s t carry the initial b u r d e n o f proof. Celotex C o m . v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 - 2 4 (1986). T h e m o v i n g p a r t y m e e t s this b u r d e n b y i d e n t i f y i n g f o r t h e c o u r t portions o f t h e record o n file which demonstrate the absence o f any genuine issue o f material fact. Id.; Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9 th Cir. 2001) (en banc). In assessing whether a p a r t y h a s m e t its burden, the court views the evidence i n t h e light m o s t favorable to t h e non-moving party, A l l e n v. C i t y o f Los Angeles, 66 F , 3 d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995). All reasonable inferences are drawn i n favor o i t h e non-movant. Gibson v. C o u n t y o f Washoe, 290 F . 3 d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002).

I f t h e m o v i n g p a r t y meets its b u r d e n w i t h a properly supported motion, the b u r d e n then
shifts t o the opposing p a r t y to present specific facts w h i c h show there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P . 56(e)(2); Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes", 67 F.3d 8 1 6 , 8 1 9 ( 9 t h Cir. 1995); see Anderson v. Liberty lA>bby. Inc., 477 U.S. 2 4 2 , 2 5 0 & n.4 (1986). Summary j u d g m e n t should b e

Order 2

granted for t h e movant, i f appropriate, i n the absence o f any significant probative evidence tending t o support the opposing party's theory o f the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); TID-Hawaii. Inc. v. F i r s t Commerce Fin. C o m . , 627 F.2d 9 9 1 , 9 9 3 - 9 4 (9th Cir. 1980); First Nat'l B a n k v. Cities Servo Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290 (1968). Conclusory allegations, unsupported b y factual material, are insufficient to defeat a m o t i o n for summary judgment. Taylor v. List, 880 F . 2 d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). mstead, the opposing party must, b y affidavit o r as otherwise provided b y R u l e 56, designate specific facts w h i c h show there i s a genuine issue for trial. Devereaux, 263 F . 3 d at 1076.

II.

Facts
P l a i n t i f f w a s a p a s s e n g e r o n U n i t e d F l i g h t 308, w h i c h d e p a r t e d f r o m L o s A n g e l e s

International Airport o n J u l y 8, 2006 and arrived at Baltimore-Washington International Airport o n J u l y 9 , 2 0 0 6 . (Def.'s Concise Statement o f Material Facts ("Def.'s CSMF") ~ 1;
CompI.~

6;

A n s w e r ~ 1.) Plainti:t!was seated i n seat 21A. (pI.'s Concise Statement o f Material Facts Detailed A m e n d e d I ("PI. 's CSMF") 2.) P l a i n t i f f alleges that approximately twenty minutes w e s t o f Baltimore she received two electric shocks to her left forehead and above h e r left eye. (CompI.
~

6; Pl.'s C S M F 2.) P l a i n t i f f alleges that these were shocks w e r e 2 0 , 0 0 0 volts o f

electricity. (pI.'s C S M F . Ex. 1 0 , 4 . ) P l a i n t i f f s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t r e p o r t t h e i n c i d e n t immediately to the flight crew because "sh e w a s i n such a daze. II (pI. 's C S M F 2.) She reported, lithe witnessing p a r t y picking h e r up at t h e airport. meet u p w i t h passengers from seat 21 C w h o s t a t e d ' Y o u l o o k h u r t ! n t ( p l . ' s C S M F 2.)

I P l a i n t i f f cites t o v a r i o u s e x h i b i t s t h r o u g h o u t h e r CSMF. H o w e v e r , the C o u r t was u n a b l e t o l o c a t e m a n y o f t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g d o c u m e n t s . I t a p p e a r s t h a t s o m e e x h i b i t s w e r e e i t h e r m i s - f i l e d o r n o t f i l e d a t all. W h e n a n exhibit c o u l d n o t be found, the C o u r t refers only t o the PI.'s CSMF as a reference.

Order 3

Plaintiff asserts t h a t she contacted United shortly after the incident, although the e x a c t date is unclear. (pI.'s C S M F 2.) P l a i n t i f f s notes indicate that b y J u l y 13, 2006, she w a s in contact w i t h t h e Defendant. (PI.'s CSMF, Ex. 1.) On this date, she h a d also contacted, v i a third party, a M a n a g e L i n e M a i n t e n a n c e N e t w o r k U n i t e d Services e m p l o y e e w h o c o n f i n n e d t h a t i t w a s p o s s i b l e t o g e t s h o c k e d o n a n a i r c r a f t . ( p I . ' s C S M F , E x . 14.) P l a i n t i f f sought medical attention, which included MR.I scans, a spinal tap, a n d visits w i t h h e r p r i m a r y c a r e p h y s i c i a n a n d s e v e r a l s p e c i a l i s t s , u p o n h e r r e t u r n to O r e g o n . D u e t o s c h e d u l i n g conflicts, i t w a s initially difficult for h e r to see a neurologist. (PI.'s C S M F 2.) P l a i n t i f f argues that t h e MR.I scans a n d spinal tap "support the traumatic b r a i n injury." (Def.'s C S M F 2.) A s a r e s u l t o f t h e a l l e g e d shock, P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h a t s h e s u f f e r e d from s e v e r a l p e r s o n a l injuries including "trauma to the forehead and left eye, t r a u m a to the brain, loss o f vision, h e a d a c h e s , p a r t i a l n e u r o l o g i c a l damage, damage t o t h e l a n g u a g e c o r t e x structure, a n d l e s i o n s . " ( p I . 's C S M F 2 . ) P l a i n t i f f s t a t e d t h a t a r a d i o l o g i s t r e a d t h e f i r s t M R l s c a n a n d s t a t e d t h a t i t s h o w s " a b o m i n a t e s a n d t h a t s o m e t h i n g w a s w r o n g , for a p e r s o n o f t h e P l a i n t i f f s a g e [sic]." ( p I . ' s C S M F 2-3.) P l a i n t i f f concluded, [t ]his w a s evidence o f s e r i o u s i n j u r y a n d a further i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l s a n d c o n f l n n s a n i n j u r y t h a t w i l l n e v e r h e a l , a n d o n l y g e t worst. T h e P l a i n t i f f a g a i n w a s a n e x t r e m e l y h e a l t h y individual, and t h o u g h t a n d p r a y e d t h a t i n t i m e she w o u l d h e a l a n d g e t b e t t e r . T h e P l a i n t i f f w i l l n e v e r g e t b e t t e r ; t h e i n j u r y is p r o g r e s s i v e i n n a t u r e a n d w i l l r e q u i r e m e d i c a t i o n f o r life, t r e a t m e n t f o r l i f e , a n d t h e p r o m i s e o f failing h e a l t h . T h e r e s u l t o f t h e i n j u r y w i l l b e e x t r e m e l y d i s a b l i n g for t h e r e s t o f P l a i n t i f f s life. (Pl.'s C S M F 2 - 3 . )

Order 4

·
III. T h e r e Is No Issue o f Genuine Fact as to Causation o f Plaintiff's Injuries
D e f e n d a n t m o v e s for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , arguing t h a t there i s n o g e n u i n e issue o f material fact as to whether Defendant has caused Plaintiff's injuries. (Def. U n i t e d Airlinels Mem. i n Supp. o f Mot. o f S u m m . J. (ttDef.'s Mem. f l 4.) P l a i n t i f f asserts the following injuries: "trauma to t h e forehead a n d left eye, trauma to the brain, loss o f vision, headaches, partial n e u r o l o g i c a l d a m a g e , d a m a g e to t h e l a n g u a g e c o r t e x s t r u c t u r e , a n d l e s i o n s . " ( p l . ' s C S M F 2.)

A.

Plaintiff M u s t Show Medical Causation With E x p e r t Testimony

D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t P l a i n t i f f m u s t s h o w m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n for h e r i n j u r i e s b y o f f e r i n g t e s t i m o n y o f a q u a l i f i e d expert. O r e g o n l a w d e s c r i b e s t h e p l a i n t i f f s b u r d e n i n a n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m at sum mary judgment: "the plaintiff's burden includes presenting evidence o f 'cause i n factI b y showing either t h a t t h e defendant's conduct was the 'but-forI cause o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s h a r m or, i n t h e case o f multiple potential causes, that i t w a s a 'substantial factor' i n bringing about the harm." M a g n u s o n v. T o t h COIl'., 221 Or. App. 262, 267, 190 P . 3 d 423 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Joshi v. Providence H e a l t h Sys., 342 Or. 152, 161-62, 149 P . 3 d 1164 (Or. 2 0 0 6 » . W h e n injuries are complex and n o t a simple "cause and effece' correlation, expert testimony is required: "[i]t is, o f c o u r s e , t h e s e t t l e d r u l e t h a t w h e r e i n j u r i e s c o m p l a i n e d o f a r e o f s u c h c h a r a c t e r as t o r e q u i r e s k i l l e d a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n s to d e t e r m i n e t h e c a u s e a n d e x t e n t t h e r e o f , t h e q u e s t i o n i s o n e o f s c i e n c e a n d m u s t n e c e s s a r i l y b e d e t e n n i n e d b y t e s t i m o n y o f skilled, p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n s . f l Cleland v. Wilcox, 273 Or. 883, 887, 543 P.2d 1032 (Or. 1975) (citations omitted); ~ Chouinard v. Health Ventures, 179 Or. App. 507, 512, 39 P . 3 d 951 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). " I f the i s s u e t u r n s u p o n s o m e fact b e y o n d t h e k e n o f l a y m e n , e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y m u s t b e p r o d u c e d . t I U r i s v. State Compensation De,pt., 247 Or. 420, 424-25, 427 P . 2 d 753 (Or. 1967).

Order 5

An e x p e r t w i t n e s s is "qualified as a n expert b y knowledge, skill, experience, training, o r
e d u c a t i o n [and] m a y t e s t i f y t h e r e t o f o r e i n the f o r m o f a n o p i n i o n o r o t h e r w i s e , i f ( l ) t e s t i m o n y i s b a s e d u p o n s u f f i c i e n t facts, o r data, ( 2 ) t h e t e s t i m o n y i s t h e p r o d u c t o f r e l i a b l e p r i n c i p l e s a n d m e t h o d s , a n d (3) t h e w i t n e s s h a s a p p l i e d t h e p r i n c i p l e s a n d m e t h o d s r e l i a b l y u s e d t o t h e facts o f t h e c a s e . " Fed. R. Evid. 702. W i t n e s s e s w h o are n o t experts m a y o n l y t e s t i f y as to " t h o s e o p i n i o n s o r inferences w h i c h are (a) rationally b a s e d o n t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e w i t n e s s , (b) h e l p f u l to

a: clear understanding o f t h e witness' testimony o r to t h e determination o f a fact at issue, a n d

(c) n o t b a s e d o n s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n i c a l , o r o t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d k n o w l e d g e w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f R u l e 702." F e d . R. E v i d . 701. N e i t h e r p a r t y d i s p u t e s t h e n e e d for e x p e r t testimony. P l a i n t i f f c l a i m s t h a t a n e l e c t r i c s h o c k r e s u l t e d i n trauma, loss o f vision, headaches, neurological damage, a n d d a m a g e t o t h e l a n g u a g e c o r t e x s t r u c t u r e . ( P L ' s C S M F 2.) T h i s i s n o t a s i m p l e c a u s e a n d e f f e c t c l a i m a n d i s " b e y o n d t h e k e n o f l a y m e n . S e e U r i s , 2 4 7 Or. a t 4 2 4 - 2 5 . P l a i n t i f f h a s c o n c e d e d t h a t s h e w i l l n e e d e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y i n h e r a n s w e r e d t o D e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s : "I b e l i e v e i n o r d e r t o c l e a r l y u n d e r s t a n d t h e m a g n i t u d e a n d o n g o i n g d e t e s t a t i o n w i t h a ' T r a u m a t i c B r a i n Injury' T B I , o f t e n a m i s d i a g n o s i s , I w i l l n e e d e x p e r t witness. A n e x p e r t i n Neuroradiology, a n d I m a g i n g Research, Neurology, Neuropathology, Cognitive Neurology Research, H e a l t h Science, N e u r o s c i e n c e , E p i d e m i o l o g i s t , and p o s s i b l y o t h e r experts [sic]." (Def.'s C S F M , 10; DecL o f E l i z a b e t h M . C l i n e (rtKline Decl."), Ex. 3 , 4 . ) D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t P l a i n t i f f h a s n o e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y to p r o v e c a u s a t i o n . P l a i n t i f f p r o v i d e d n o m e d i c a l r e c o r d s t h a t c o n f i r m o r suggest causation. F r o m w h a t t h e C o u r t w a s a b l e t o l o c a t e a n d i d e n t i f y i n t h e P l a i n t i f f s exhibits, Plaintiff's m e d i c a l records o n l y d i s c u s s h e r

Order 6

symptoms a n d v a r i o u s tests t h a t w e r e performed. I n fact Dr. Ireland c o n c l u d e d in a n A p r i l 9, 2 0 0 9 l e t t e r to Plaintiff's p h y s i c i a n Dr. Moisa, "[t]he etiology o f Cecelia's s y m p t o m s a n d MR.I abnormalities r e m a i n s uncertain. . . . I c a n n o t relate h e r continued s h o c k like sensations n o r h e r c o n t i n u o u s p r e s s u r e s e n s a t i o n i n t h e h e a d to t h e alleged electrical shock." (pI.'s E x . 2 7 , 7.) M u c h o f w h a t P l a i n t i f f p r o v i d e d t o D e f e n d a n t w a s b a s e d o n Plaintiff's I n t e r n e t research. (Def.'s M e m . 8.) S h e b a s e d h e r conclusions o f causation o n h e r self-diagnosis:

I t w o u l d b e i m p o s s i b l e to a n s w e r accurately and d e t e r m i n e d t h e e x t e n t o f e a c h injury, illness, a n d c o n d i t i o n w i t h o u t m o r e testing, and t h e t e s t i m o n y o f experts. B e c a u s e o f all n e w a n d ongoing symptoms, I h a v e gone o n line to h a v e a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d t h e p o s s i b l e treatment, t e s t i n g a n d s e q u e n c e s o f this injury, w i t h all t h e n e w n e g a t i v e medical p r o b l e m s t h a t I a m experiencing. W i t h m y r e s e n t r e s e a r c h I f o u n d t h a t all o f t h e s e s y m p t o m s a r e a r e s u l t s o f t h e i n j u r y o n t h e U n i t e d f l i g h t [sic].
( K l i n e DecI., E x . 3 , 7.) I n a d d i t i o n to h e r m e d i c a l self-diagnosis, P l a i n t i f f also m a k e s statements c o n c e r n i n g t h e electric s h o c k a l l e g e d to h a v e c a u s e d t h e injuries, b u t these allegations h a v e n o t b e e n v a l i d a t e d b y e x p e r t s a n d a p p e a r to b e b a s e d o n h e r o w n beliefs a n d conclusions. Specifically, P l a i n t i f f h a s s t a t e d t h a t she r e c e i v e d a 20,000 v o l t electric shock, yet s h e has n o d a t a t o support this. (pI. 's CS:MF, Ex. 1 0 , 4 . ) V i e w i n g t h i s e v i d e n c e i n t h e light m o s t favorable to t h e Plaintiff, t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h a t D e f e n d a n t h a s m e t its b u r d e n a n d demonstrated t h a t P l a i n t i f f h a s s u b m i t t e d n o p r o b a t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t D e f e n d a n t c a u s e d h e r injuries.

B.

P l a i n t i f f H a s Not S h o w n M e d i c a l C a u s a t i o n a n d H a s N o t S h o w n T h e r e I s a G e n u i n e Issue o f F a c t

T o s u r v i v e t h e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , P l a i n t i f f m u s t p r e s e n t s p e c i f i c facts o n w h i c h

Order 7

a r e a s o n a b l e j u r y c o u l d find that Defendant caused h e r injuries, b u t she h a s not. I n opposition to D e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n , P l a i n t i f f describes h e r perception o f the alleged incident, and h e r a l l e g e d injuries, b u t s h e h a s n o t p r o v i d e d e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y discussing h o w D e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n t acts c a u s e d h e r harm.
I t a p p e a r s t h a t P l a i n t i f f h a s s o u g h t e x p e r t s to a s s i s t her. In a l e t t e r a d d r e s s e d t o t h e C o u r t

d a t e d A p r i l 30, 2 0 0 9 , P l a i n t i f f e x p l a i n e d t h a t she h a d identified a n a v i a t i o n aeronautical e n g i n e e r as w e l l as a t least two medical doctors w h o are experts o n t r a u m a t o the brain. (pI.'s April 30, 2 0 0 9 Letter.) P l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t e d t h e c u r r i c u l u m v i t a e o f W i l l i a m P. T h o r w a t c h , P . E . , a n e l e c t r i c a l , m e c h a n i c a l , a n d a v i a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i v e e n g i n e e r as w e l l a s t h e I n t e r n e t b i o g r a p h y p a g e from the U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Medical Center o f Dr. Raphael C. Lee, a professor o f surgery, medicine, organismal b i o l o g y and anatomy, and molecular medicine. (p1.'s CSMF, Ex. 15 &17.) H o w e v e r , a t t h e t i m e o f filing, P l a i n t i f f d i d n o t p r o v i d e t h e i r t e s t i m o n y t o s u p p o r t h e r c l a i m . I d e n t i f y i n g p o t e n t i a l e x p e r t s i s n o t e n o u g h a t t h i s s t a g e o f t h e litigation. P l a i n t i f f h a s filed n u m e r o u s documents w i t h t h e Court, b u t u p o n r e v i e w t h e C o u r t does n o t fmd there t o b e a genuine issue o f material fact. I t is clear t h a t P l a i n t i f f h a s gone to g r e a t l e n g t h s to r e s e a r c h t h e i s s u e s t h a t s h e b e l i e v e s a r e i n v o l v e d . I n h e r C S M F , s h e c i t e d s e v e r a l F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n R e g u l a t i o n s , s u b m i t t e d airline s q u a w k s h e e t s , a c c i d e n t r e p o r t s , a n d s t u d i e s about the electrical w i r i n g in airplanes, all o f w h i c h undoubtedly required patience and persistence t o locate a n d obtain. 2 (p1.'s Mem. i n Opp. to Mot. for Summ. J. ("P1.'s M e m . " ) 2 . )

2 P l a i n t i f f presented the following articles a n d reports: "National Transportation Safety B o a r d A i r c r a f t Wiring Testimony o f B e m a r d Loeb" (CSMF Ex. 1 6 , 4 ) ; "Aging Aircraft Applications" b y LiveWire T e s t Labs, Inc. (CSMF Ex. 16, 15); "Federal Aviation Administration Service Difficulty Report Data" (CSMF Ex. 1 6 , 9 ) ; "Wiring Inspections" b y D a v i d Evans, E d i t o r o f Aviation Maintenance (CSMF Ex. 16, 16); "Static Electricity: A n EverPresent Danger" b y Aviation Safety Maintainer (CSMF Ex. 18, I).

Order 8

However, n o n e o f these submissions address the issue o f causation that i s necessary at this stage to allow h e r to proceed. These scientific studies a n d accident reports do not specifically address w h a t h a p p e n e d o n h e r f l i g h t o r evaluate t h e Plaintiff. P l a i n t i f f has submitted h e r medical records from physicians w h o have either e x a m i n e d or t r e a t e d h e r . T h e s e r e c o r d s d o s u g g e s t t h a t s h e is s u f f e r i n g f r o m v a r i o u s m e d i c a l s y m p t o m s , b u t no d o c t o r h a s c o n f i r m e d o r c o n c l u d e d t h a t s h e suffered from an electric s h o c k t h a t c a u s e d h e r injuries. See Dr. Ireland's letter, supra m.A. fu addition, references to the incident i n t h e m e d i c a l records o n l y c o n f i r m t h a t P l a i n t i f f t o l d t h e doctors w h a t s h e b e l i e v e d happened. f u r e s t a t i n g P l a i n t i t r s p e r s o n a l i m p r e s s i o n s i n t h e m e d i c a l records, t h e physicians are n e i t h e r c o n f i r m i n g n o r d e n y i n g h e r c o m p l a i n t s and allegations. P l a i n t i f f has offered no specific facts that can suggest Defendant caused h e r injuries. She h a s n o t s h o w n t h e r e i s a g e n u i n e i s s u e f o r trial.

IV.

Conclusion

D e f e n d a n t m o v e s for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t a r g u i n g t h a t P l a i n t i f f h a s n o t p r e s e n t e d m e d i c a l c a u s a t i o n f o r h e r i n j u r i e s . T a k e n i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e to t h e P l a i n t i f f , t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e s that there is no genuine issue o f material fact. Defendant's motion is granted.

D A T E D this

/1

M a r k D. Clarke U n i t e d States M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e

Order 9