Ergonomics Expert Testimony Inadmissible: M&C Claim Dismissed - Spinal Cord Stimulator is Palliative, not Curative Care
Thibodeaux V. Gulf Coast Tugs, Inc., 2023 WL 2810691; 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60583 * (C.A. No. Civil Action No. 22-1205, E.D. La. April 6, 2023; Ashe, J.)
Nolan Thibodeaux, a seaman employed by Gulf Coast Tugs, Inc., claimed he injured his foot and other parts of his body lifting a fifty-six pound ice chest while serving on M/V ELIANA M. GONDRAN.[1] To buttress his claim that his employer was negligent and that the vessel was unseaworthy, he listed an expert in ergonomics, Kenneth Ronald Laughery, Jr., Ph.D., to testify about workplace safety, safe lifting procedures and proper training in lifting based on maritime regulations.[2] Gulf Coast brought a Motion in Limine to exclude the proposed expert’s testimony on the basis that it would not assist the trier of fact and that lifting in within the common understanding of the jury.[3] In addition, Gulf Coast brought Motions for Summary Judgment to dismiss the negligence and unseaworthiness claims as well as to dismiss the claim for maintenance and cure.[4]
Judge Ashe applied the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[5] and granted the Motion to Exclude the proposed expert’s testimony on the claimant’s state of mind, the employer’s training on how to lift an ice chest or any legal conclusions regarding the seaworthiness of the vessel. Lifting an object is within the normal everyday experiences and within the common sense of the jury not requiring expert testimony.[6]
With respect to the employer’s motion to dismiss the negligence and unseaworthiness claims, Judge Ashe stated there were issues of fact precluding summary judgment.[7] He did, however, grant the Motion to Dismiss the claim for maintenance and cure. The treating orthopedist opined that the claimant would likely require a spinal cord stimulator for pain. Judge Ashe concluded that based on applicable law pain relief is palliative and is not intended to correct any underlying condition.[8] He, thus, dismissed the claim for maintenance and cure.[9]
