IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30584

Summary Calendar

CRAIG C. ANDREWS; BEVERLY R. ANDREWS,

Plaintiffs−Appellants,

versus

LOMAR SHIPPING, LIMITED; MS MAINE TRADER GMBH & COMPANY,

Incorrectly Named as Lomar Corporation, Limited,

Defendants−Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:16-CV-14842

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Craig Andrews, a river pilot, along with his wife, sued, in diversity, for

alleged injury from climbing a ladder that, he claims, was negligently rigged. 

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant companies, 

explaining its decision in a thorough and detailed nineteen-page Order and 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 26, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30584 Document: 00514324564 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2018
No. 17-30584

2

Reasons. On appeal, Andrews questions whether summary judgment should 

have been granted in a complex matter, whether the district court should have 

applied the presumptions from the Pennsylvania Rule and Housely v. Cerise, 

whether the court used the wrong caselaw in granting summary judgment, and 

whether there are genuine issues of material fact.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for want of 

adequate and competent medical evidence. As the court carefully explained,

To create a genuine issue for trial and withstand summary judgment, 

the plaintiffs must submit competent admissible medical evidence that 

his hip surgery was caused by the injury he says he suffered climbing 

the accommodation ladder . . . . In support of their causation theory, 

the plaintiffs submit an unsworn letter from a previously-deposed doctor, who states in conclusory fashion that Mr. Andrews’s description of 

his leg position in climbing and maneuvering the ladder “could have 

resulted in fracture of the antero-superior aspect of the ‘socket’ of the 

left hip arthroplasty.”

Summarizing the record, the district court explained that “[t]he only evidence 

on medical causation are two doctors suggesting that the hip revision surgery 

was necessary due to wear and tear of the hip replacement and one doctor’s 

. . . testimony that he lacks sufficient information to render a medical causation opinion.” The court therefore concludes that “[b]ecause there is no medical 

expert opining that Mr. Andrews’s left hip injury was, more likely than not, 

caused by the . . . ladder . . ., [there is] a complete absence of record evidence 

to support the mandatory element of medical causation.” 

In sum, it is undisputed that Andrews had experienced substantial hip 

issues before the alleged accident. As the district court pointed out, nothing in 

the record supports, to the degree required for liability, Andrews’s notion that 

the incident involving the ladder contributed to his difficulties. The summary 

judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons comprehensively provided 

by the district court.

 Case: 17-30584 Document: 00514324564 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2018