Roberson v. U.S.A
| Decision Date | 22 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 4:09-cv-00491-RBH |
| Parties | Michelle Renee Roberson, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
This matter is before the Court following a bench trial held on October 25-26, 2010. Dr. Stephen Boatwright, Dr. Michael McCaffrey, and Dr. David Kee, Jr., testified by way of video deposition. At the Court's request, the parties have submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Having considered all of the evidence, the Court issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that any findings of fact constitute conclusions of law, or vice-versa, they shall be so regarded.
This matter is brought before the Court pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680. On February 25, 2009, a Complaint was filed by Plaintiff, alleging that she was injured in a motor vehicle collision with an employee of the United States due to the employee's negligence. On August 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Daubert Motion to Exclude Certain Opinion Testimony of James Selph, MD and John V. Walsh IV, MD" [Docket # 35], on which the Court reserved ruling. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 104 and 702, Plaintiff moved to exclude any and all testimony and opinions from the Defendant's medical experts, Dr. Walsh and Dr. Selph, to the extent said testimony and opinions relate to the causal relationship between the collision and Plaintiff's injuries. The nature of the collision, including the amount of property damage and the speed of the vehicles involved in the collision, was just one of the bases for Dr. Walsh's and Dr. Selph's shared opinion that there is no plausible causal relationship between the collision and Plaintiff's subsequent medical problems. Their opinion is supported by various other independent bases that are not attacked in the Plaintiff's Daubert Motion, such as (1) no signs of injury at the scene; (2) no complaints of neck pain on the day of the collision; (3) poor relationship between the time of the collision and Plaintiff's symptoms as well as the location of the symptoms; (4) Plaintiff's pre-existing history; (5) the lack of symptoms of focal weakness in the Emergency Department following the accident; (6) the interval expansion of symptoms following the accident and Plaintiff's complaints; and (7) the degenerative nature of her neck condition. As such, the Court denies Plaintiff's Daubert Motion and finds that Dr. Walsh and Dr. Selph are qualified to give an opinion as to the causality of Plaintiff's medical problems and injuries, and their testimony is sufficiently relevant and reliable to warrant its admission since it has other bases independent of property damage and/or speed.
After hearing the testimony; assessing the credibility of witnesses; and reviewing the exhibits, evidence, and briefs submitted by the parties, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The accident at issue occurred on May 4, 2006, at approximately 10:15 a.m., where Pine Hallow Road intersects Highway 544 in Socastee, South Carolina. Mr. Marshall Craig Sasser ("Mr. Sasser"), who is employed by the Department of Interior, Fish, and Wildlife Service and stationed at Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge, was driving a 2005 Chevrolet Tahoe ("SUV") and towing a 20 foot War Eagle outboard motor boat ("the boat"). Mr. Sasser wastraveling towards Peach Tree Landing to conduct a bird survey, along with two other individuals, Maria Whitehead and Tim Kallegren. (Transcript "Tr." Sasser, pp. 156-58); (Def. Ex. 4).
2. On that date, Plaintiff was driving a Buick Sedan heading north on Pine Hollow Road in Socastee, South Carolina. Plaintiff stopped her vehicle behind the boat and SUV being driven by Mr. Sasser. (Tr. Roberson, pp. 14-16).
3. While at the intersection of Highway 544 and Pine Hallow Road, Mr. Sasser realized that he missed his turn and needed to turn around and go back down Pine Hallow Road. He decided to back up the SUV and the boat in order to perform a U-turn at a point just before where Pine Hallow Road enters Highway 544. (Tr. Sasser, pp. 158-60).
4. As Mr. Sasser began to move backwards, he heard Plaintiff's car horn twice and then what sounded like a bump or metal scraping. Id. at 162; (Tr. Whitehead, p. 183). Mr. Sasser admitted that he improperly backed the SUV and the boat into Plaintiff's vehicle. (Tr. Sasser, pp. 160-61, 178-79). Mr. Sasser also testified that the boat weighed around 2000 pounds. Id. at 179.
5. Plaintiff testified that she believed the motor blade from the boat engine was going to come through her windshield and hit her in the face so she attempted to avoid the blade by trying to duck. Her testimony was:
The boat was backing up really fast, and I'm sure I ducked, because I couldn't figure out what to do with my head. The prop of the motor and blade of the motor was headed toward my windshield.... The, the instant thing that I can remember is, I must have tried to duck so that, I kept thinking the prop was going to hit me in the face and go through my windshield. So I feel like I ducked. Something happened with my back. It scrunched down, it gave a very funny feeling that I've never felt before. (Tr. Roberson, pp. 14-15).
6. By all accounts, the boat motor came in contact with the hood of Plaintiff's car at approximately a 45 degree angle, as the boat was higher than the hood of the car. See id. at 37. Plaintiff was restrained with a seat belt, and her car received "a jarring motion, but it did not move because [she] had [her] foot on the brakes." Id. at 38. Additionally, Plaintiff's air bag did not deploy. Id. at 39. Based on the photographs, collision report, and testimony of the witnesses, this appeared to be a low impact collision. (Def. Ex. 1 & 2).
7. After the collision, Mr. Sasser jumped out of the SUV to see if Plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff was still seated in her vehicle. Mr. Sasser testified that Plaintiff was visibly shaken and crying (Tr. Sasser, p.178). Mr. Sasser admitted that, at the time, he considered that Plaintiff could have sustained a neck injury due to the collision. Id. at 175. Nonetheless, Plaintiff repeatedly told Mr. Sasser that she was not injured immediately following the collision. (Tr. Roberson, p. 42); (Tr. Sasser, p. 168). Moreover, Plaintiff had no bleeding, cuts, abrasions, bruises, or concussion. (Tr. Roberson, p. 43). Plaintiff refused the offer to have an ambulance take her to the hospital because she did not want to pay for the ambulance ride. Id. at 16-17.
8. Dr. Maria Whitehead, one of the passengers in the SUV, corroborated the events of the collision as testified to by Plaintiff and Mr. Sasser. She described the accident as a low impact collision and testified that there were no apparent injuries at the scene. (Tr. Whitehead, p. 184).
9. There was no damage to the boat or motor. (Tr. Sasser, p. 171). The damage to the hood and front grill of Plaintiff's Buick Sedan was estimated by a body shop to be $1787.52. (Tr. Sasser, pp. 167, 177); (Def. Ex. 2). The Defendant has previously paid to the insurance company Plaintiff's property damage, minus Plaintiff's deductible. (Def. Ex. 2).
10. Mr. Sasser did not appear to contest his responsibility for causing the collision, and the Court finds that Mr. Sasser violated South Carolina's statutory duty to back safely without interfering with other traffic and to be vigilant and watchful, and, therefore, was negligent per se. Additionally, Mr. Sasser breached the duties to exercise ordinary care in using the highways and to keep a proper lookout and keep the vehicle under proper control so as to avoid colliding with other vehicles on the highway. Mr. Sasser was solely responsible for causing the collision.
11. Plaintiff was seen at South Strand Ambulatory Care Center later that day where she complained of lower and upper back pain. (Tr. Roberson, p. 17). The medical records noted a "moderate amount of tenderness to palpation in the perilumbar and parasacral area as well as the right perithoracic," but reflected that she did not complain of neck pain at that time (Def. Ex. 22, p. 42). The Emergency Room diagnosis was "back pain," likely due to muscle spasms, and no neck or spine x-rays were taken (Def. Ex. 22, pp. 33, 37); (Tr. Roberson, p. 44).
12. Plaintiff felt increased pain in her neck within 24 to 48 hours after the collision. On Monday, May 8, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by a chiropractor, Dr. Zack Causey, for severe neck pain. (Tr. Roberson, p. 18); (Tr. Causey, p. 69). She reported reduced or restricted movement with reading, using the telephone, doing laundry, cooking, combing her hair, and driving a motor vehicle. Additionally, she complained of "severe constant pain in the neck area bilaterally." (Def. Ex. 25, p. 10).
13. Prior to the May 4, 2006, collision, Plaintiff received treatment on a fairly regular basis with her family physician, Dr. Victoria Moshoures. The medical records and testimony reveal thatPlaintiff suffered from numerous medical issues, many of which have been described as "mostly female problems" directed in the abdominal area, such as endometriosis; hysterectomy; chronic hematuria; ovarian cysts; tubal ligation; benign breast cysts; a hernia; and a gall-bladder removal. Plaintiff also suffered a wrist injury in 2001 for which she was seen at the hospital, but she did not suffer any permanent injury. On January 7, 2003, Plaintiff complained that she had been having neck pain for two weeks and received a trigger point injection from Dr. Moshoures. Subsequently, Plaintiff visited Dr. Moshoures for other problems on numerous occasions. However, Plaintiff's testimony and medical records reveal that Plaintiff did not complain of neck pain, and Dr. Moshoures did...
To continue reading
Request your trial