Platt v. Holland Am. Line, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2:20-cv-00062-JHC |
| Parties | THERESE ROHLING PLATT, Plaintiff, v. HOLLAND AMERICA LINE INC., ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Before the Court is Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. # 50) and Defendants' motion to strike Dr Pliskin's report (incorporated in Defendants' reply brief) (Dkt. # 81 at 1-6). The Court noted the summary judgment motion for next month (see generally Dkt.) but the parties have fully briefed it, and the Court may now rule on it.
For the reasons below, the Court:
In April 2019, Platt and her husband boarded a Caribbean cruise on the ZUIDERDAM, a ship operated by Defendants. See generally Dkt. ## 50 at 2-6, 76 at 5-18. On April 11, 2019, Platt disembarked to attend a barbeque on a small private island called “Half Moon Cay.” On the island, there were various food and drink stations for the guests to enjoy. Platt tried to pour herself some guava juice from a juice machine. Id. She then felt a shock run through her body. Id. As Platt stated in her post-incident report:
My husband decided to take a pre-filled cup of water but I saw that one of the machines that dispenses drinks had a guava flavoured juice. I decided to have the guava. I selected a cup situated to the left of the machine on a platform. As I moved towards the machine[,] I immediately felt a sensation which I would describe as an electric shock. I screamed and fell back onto the ground where I felt pain in my arms and legs. The initial feeling was that the shock was rising from my feet and up my body. It was brief but caused me to cry out in pain and as I lay on the ground I found myself hyperventilating as a result of the shock.
Platt received medical treatment and evaluation while aboard the ship and for the duration of the cruise.[1] Immediately after the incident, Platt began to complain of numbness, pain in her limbs, anxiety, headaches, and dizziness. See e.g., Dkt. # 80 at 35, 48. Platt visited the ship's doctor multiple times during the remainder of the cruise. Dkt. ## 50 at 3; 76 at 5-6. She was also referred to a neurologist in Curasao, “Dr. Prada C.”[2] Dkt. # 80 at 30. Platt reported similar symptoms to Dr. Prada, who concluded that there was a “[p]ossible peripheral nerve injury after electric shock” and recommended neurological follow-up after the cruise. Id.
When Platt returned home, she began treatment with various medical providers. Platt saw her primary care physician, Dr. Christopher Choi. Platt reported to Dr. Choi that she continued to suffer from the symptoms that she experienced on board the cruise, including tingling, intermittent sharp pain, anxiety, and chest pain. See, e.g., Dkt. # 80 at 57, 59, 61, 63. His “assessments” included “[n]europathic pain,” “[l]umbrosacral radiculopathy,” “and “[e]lectrocution.” Id. at 59.
Dr. Choi referred Platt to neurologist Dr. Venkat Veerappan. Id. Platt began regular treatment with Dr. Veerappan. During her treatment, Platt reported symptoms including shooting pain in her feet, legs, arms, and hands, “pins and needles” sensation in her feet and hands, burning in her left hand, occasional chest pain, headaches, and fatigue. Dkt. # 51-15 at 24. Dr. Veerappan ordered several tests to assess Platt. Her electroencephalogram (“EEG”) showed “bilateral spike and wave activity lasting 1-2 seconds at a time,” which was “suggestive for epilepsy.” Dkt. # 51-16 at 2. The report also suggested that “[c]linical correlation with CT/MRI scans, etc. is recommended.” Id. But Platt's other testing-including her electromyography test(“EMG”), nerve conduction studies, and MRI scans-all returned normal results. In a declaration attached to Platt's response brief, Dr. Veerappan stated that in his medical opinion, “it is more likely than not that the electrocution injury caused Mrs. Platt to suffer the following: (a) Focal seizure with experiential sensory symptoms[;] (b) Anxiety depression[;] (c) Epilepsy[;] (d) Paresthesia[;] (e) Cognitive disorder[;] (f) Short-term memory loss[;] (g) Electrocution, sequela[; and] (h) Sensory neuropathy[.]” Dkt. # 78 at 4.
Dr. Veerappan referred Platt to neuropsychologist Dr. Sharon Jung to “assess her cognitive functioning in the context of anxiety and seizures.” Dkt. # 51-18 at 2. After attempting to administer a series of cognitive tests, Dr. Jung concluded that Platt “failed a performance validity test.” Id. According to Dr. Jung, Id. Because Platt failed the validity test, her “performances on other cognitive tasks could not be considered as valid indicators of her current level of cognitive functioning.” Id. at 3. Notwithstanding this conclusion, Dr. Jung still concluded that Id. Dr. Jung stated that “based on the patient's history and temporal onset of symptoms, her cognitive concerns may be multifactorial including: 1) depression, anxiety, and PTSD from the electrical injury; 2) ongoing pain; 3) reduced sleep quality; 4) cognitive sequelae from electrical injury; 5) seizures; and/or 6) medications (i.e., Lamictai, Ativan).” Id. She also concluded that “[h]er endorsement on a self-report questionnaire of symptoms of PTSD related to her electrical injury was clinically significant.” Id.
At the direction of her attorneys, Platt underwent evaluation by retained expert Dr. Neil H. Pliskin, a neuropsychologist and professor of clinical psychology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine. Dkt. # 51-21 at 2-13, 15. Dr. Pliskin is an expert in the effects of electric shock on patients. Id. Dr. Pliskin administered tests and conducted an examination to assess Platt's neurocognitive functioning. Id. at 4-5. Dr. Pliskin concluded that the results of these tests Id. at 6. Dr. Pliskin stated that Platt may suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), but also opined that it was “unclear to what extent [her neurocognitive symptoms were] directly relatable to her electrical shock injury.” Id. at 12. In a follow-up letter in 2023, Dr. Pliskin stated that Platt's Dkt. # 79 at 32.
In October and November 2022, Platt was hospitalized following a series of seizure episodes. An extended, 24-hour EEG recording indicated “abnormal” results that were “consistent with history of seizure disorder with semiology that can be suggestive of temporal lobe or frontal lobe epilepsy.” Dkt. # 80 at 131. Because of the severity of her seizures, Dr. Jimmy Novorro opined that Platt was “not considered to be safe for discharge,” and recommended that Platt be transferred to another facility for further monitoring. Id. at 142. She was then treated by Dr. Samir S. Bangalore, a specialist in seizures. Dr. Bangalore concluded that the seizures were not “electrographic” and that she did not exhibit “epileptiform abnormalities to suggest epilepsy.” Id. at 152. Dr. Bangalore concluded that “[in] all likelihood, her seizures are due to underlying psychiatric disturbance, not an active neurologic issue.” He diagnosed her with “psychogenic nonepileptic seizures.” Id.
Platt brought this action in January 2020. Dkt. # 1. She alleged that Holland America Line - USA, Holland America Line NV LLC, and HAL Antillen NV (collectively, “Holland”) negligently maintained the electrical system of the juice machine by failing to inspect, maintain, and repair the machine and by failing to take steps to prevent the incident. Id. at 4. The complaint asserts that Holland's negligence caused Platt's injuries and that as a result, she suffers from, among other things, tingling/pain in her extremities, nerve damage, seizures, short-term memory loss, headaches, and various psychological and cognitive conditions. See, e.g., Id. at 4.
Holland now moves for partial summary judgment. Dkt. # 50. Holland does not dispute that the juice machine shocked Platt, or that Holland negligently maintained the juice machine and associated electrical system. Holland has already stipulated to those elements of Platt's case. See Dkt. # 18 (order accepting Holland's stipulation of negligence). Instead, Holland's motion disputes only whether the shock caused the host of injuries from which Platt says she now suffers. In its reply brief, Holland also moves to strike a report authored by Dr. Pliskin. Se...
To continue reading
Request your trial