IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30357

Summary Calendar

CLARENCE STOKES,

Plaintiff–Appellant

v.

ATLANTIC SOUNDING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; WEEKS MARINE, 

INCORPORATED, 

Defendants–Appellees

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WEEKS MARINE, INCORPORATED; ATLANTIC SOUNDING COMPANY, 

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs—Appellees

v.

CLARENCE STOKES,

Defendant—Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:11-CV-2366

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* 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

December 4, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-30357 Document: 00512460540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2013
No. 13-30357

Plaintiff–Appellant Clarence Stokes (“Stokes”) appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his claims against Defendants–Appellees Atlantic 

Sounding Company, Inc. (“Atlantic Sounding”) and Weeks Marine, Inc. 

(“Weeks Marine”) following a bench trial. At issue is whether the district court 

erred in concluding that Stokes failed to show that he had sustained an injury 

necessary to make out his claims for (1) unseaworthiness, (2) maintenance and 

cure, and (3) negligence under the Jones Act, 42 U.S.C. § 30104, and the 

general maritime and admiralty law. For the reasons below, we affirm.

I. FACTS

Stokes was an employee of Atlantic Sounding. Weeks Marine owns and 

operates a dredge vessel named the Capt Frank to which Stokes was assigned. 

On his application for employment with Atlantic Sounding, Stokes omitted any 

mention of a previous employment with TODCO during which he suffered an 

accident and received a settlement, despite the fact that the application asked 

specific questions regarding previous accidents.

On April 18, 2011, employees aboard the Capt Frank found Stokes

calling for help after an apparent fall from a ladder. Stokes was taken to 

Terrebonne General Medical Center where he was initially seen by Dr. Owen 

Grossman. Upon his initial examination, Dr. Grossman found no bruises, 

abrasion, or lacerations—typical indicators of a fall. After more extensive 

testing, the medical team at Terrebonne General Medical Center was unable 

to discern the cause of Stokes’s pain and determined that Stokes was probably 

malingering.

The Terrebonne medical team recommended and arranged to transfer

Stokes to East Jefferson General Hospital in New Orleans so that he could

undergo inpatient psychiatric treatment to further investigate the 

malingering. Stokes refused this recommendation and instead was admitted 

to Forest General Hospital in Hattiesburg, Mississippi on April 27, 2011. 

2

 Case: 13-30357 Document: 00512460540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2013
No. 13-30357

Doctors again were unable to find any physical explanation for Stokes’s claim

of pain. Upon his discharge, doctors recommended Stokes see an orthopedist 

and a psychiatrist. Stokes failed to comply with the recommendation and did 

not follow up on his treatment until September 12, 2011. On this date, in 

preparation for the present litigation and on the advice of his attorney, Stokes

saw Dr. Troy Beaucoundray, a neurologist and interventional pain 

management specialist. In addition, at the behest of the defendants, Stokes

was seen by psychiatrist Dr. Rennie Culver. 

On December 21, 2011, Stokes brought a lawsuit against Atlantic 

Sounding and Weeks Marine in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Louisiana. Stokes contended that Atlantic Sounding and 

Weeks Marine were liable for his injuries under negligence principles and that 

he was entitled to maintenance and cure. Following a scheduling conference 

and the completion of discovery, the matter proceeded to a bench trial. 

At trial, several of the doctors who had cared for Stokes after his alleged 

accident testified that they had been unable to identify the cause of his pain 

and that they could not rule out malingering or conversion. Dr. Culver, the 

only psychiatrist to see Stokes prior to trial, testified that he believed Stokes

was malingering. Dr. Beaucoundray was the only testifying doctor to state 

that, more likely than not, an event on April 18, 2011 had caused Stokes’s pain. 

However, Dr. Beaucoundray could not say with certainty that the pain was a 

result of a fall from a ladder. He also made clear that at the time he was 

treating Stokes, he was unaware of Stokes’s earlier injury while employed with 

TODCO in 2006. In addition, Dr. Beaucoundray stated that he would have 

liked to see Stokes be more committed to his prescribed physical therapy. 

In its oral reasons for judgment, the trial court identified four issues in 

the case: (1) whether Stokes actually had an accident or whether he falsified 

the event itself; (2) assuming that he indeed fell from a ladder, whether Stokes

3

 Case: 13-30357 Document: 00512460540 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2013
No. 13-30357

was injured on April 18, 2011; (3) the extent of Stokes’s injuries and resulting 

damages; and (4) whether Stokes’s failure to disclose past injuries barred 

recovery for maintenance and cure under McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship 

Corporation, 396 F.2d 547, 548–49 (5th Cir. 1968). After acknowledging the 

issues, the court determined that the second issue was dispositive. The trial 

judge weighed the opinions of the doctors’ testimony and ruled that Stokes

could not satisfy his burden of proof in showing that he sustained an injury on 

April 18, 2011. In an abundance of caution, the district court also analyzed 

the other issues and found that even were it to address them, it would still 

dismiss Stokes’s claim. The district court entered a judgment in favor of 

Appellees on April 8, 2013 and dismissed Stokes’s claims with prejudice. 

Stokes filed a notice of appeal on the same day. 

Stokes raises four issues on appeal. He argues that the district court 

erred when it concluded: (1) he was not entitled to maintenance and cure 

because he willfully rejected recommended medical care; (2) no accident took 

place on April 18th, 2011, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary; (3) 

Atlantic Sounding and Weeks Marine were not negligent under the Jones Act 

and that the vessel was seaworthy even though several witnesses testified that 

the ladder from which the plaintiff fell was improperly secured; and (4) no 

claim to punitive damages existed.

II. DISCUSSION

In a bench-tried admiralty case, a district court’s rulings concerning 

negligence and causation are findings of fact, and are reviewed only for clear 

error. Manderson v. Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc., 666 F.3d 373, 376 (5th 

Cir. 2012). We must also give “due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to 

judge the witnesses’ credibility.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6)) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). We may not find clear error if the district court’s 

4

 Case: 13-30357 Document: 00512460540 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/04/2013
No. 13-30357

finding of fact is plausible in light of the record as a whole, even if the Court 

would have weighed the evidence differently. Id.

Stokes contends that the district court ruled against him in the face of 

clear evidence that an injury occurred on this date. To support this contention, 

he claims that the testimony of Dr. Culver should be given little to no weight 

and that the testimony of Dr. Beaucoundray should be given more. He cites 

Fontenot v. Wal-Mart, 08-158 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/4/09); 5 So. 3d 298, a case in 

which a state appellate court discounted Dr. Culver’s testimony because he 

was not a treating physician and was used only to examine the plaintiff for 

trial purposes. Id. at 307. We are not bound by the state appellate court’s 

determination, but, even if we were, we would still find this case 

distinguishable. In Fontenot, the appellate court excoriated the trial court for 

relying principally on Dr. Culver’s opinion formed on scant interactions with 

the patient and only in preparation for the trial. See id. at 303 (describing how 

Dr. Culver met with patient for less than two hours and failed to review 

pertinent records). Here, however, the district court weighed the opinions of 

all of the physicians that treated Stokes, including those of Dr. Beaucoundray

and Dr. Culver. The trial judge stated, “Though Dr. Culver’s analysis might 

seem dispositive, the Court further carefully evaluated Dr. Troy 

Beaucoundray’s testimony.” Therefore, we are not inclined to find clear error 

in this case simply because of the state appellate court’s determination about 

Dr. Culver’s competence and credibility in a different case that is factually 

distinct. 

There is no evidence that the district court’s findings of fact were 

implausible in light of the record as a whole. See Manderson, 666 F.3d at 373. 

There is no evidence to lead to such a determination. The district court was 

apprised that questions of malingering arose early in Stokes’s treatment and 

continued throughout his care at several different hospitals. Only Dr. 

5

 Case: 13-30357 Document: 00512460540 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/04/2013
No. 13-30357

Beaucoundray, a physician sought at the direction of Stokes’s attorney, 

testified that he believed that more likely than not “something” occurred on 

April 18, 2011 that led to Stokes pain. However, even he could not say with 

any medical certainty that the pain was the result of a fall from a ladder. 

Giving due regard to the district court’s opportunity and competence in 

weighing the witnesses in a bench trial, we cannot conclude that the district 

court erred in finding that Stokes had not proven that an event on April 18 

caused his injury. Because we agree with the district court that this issue is 

dispositive of all Stokes’s claims, we affirm on this ground and need not reach 

the other issues Stokes raised.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. 

6

 Case: 13-30357 Document: 00512460540 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/04/2013