Opinion ID: 6925
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jarreau's injury: medical causation

Text: 18 Jarreau argues that the district court's exoneration of both PATCO and JWT from liability for Jarreau's injury must be reversed. He urges that court made errors of fact and law. We independently review a district court's conclusions of law. We may reverse its findings of fact, however, only if we determine that they were clearly erroneous. 18 We consider whether Jarreau proved that the collision caused his back injury, entitling him to receive compensation from the concursus. 19 A limitation proceeding generally comprises a two-step process, 19 the first being the establishment of liability of the shipowner to the claimant, as to which the claimant (or libellant) bears the burden. 20 The whole doctrine of limitations of liability presupposes that a liability exists which is to be limited. If no liability exists there is nothing to limit. 21 Thus Jarreau was required initially to prove facts supporting his claim that PATCO was liable to him for his alleged injury. 22 20 The trial court concluded that PATCO was entitled to exoneration from liability to Jarreau because he failed to prove that the collision played any part, however small, in causing his injury. Jarreau challenges that finding. We review the court's finding for clear error. 23 21 In cases involving issues of medical causation, it is not the function of a court to search the record for conflicting circumstantial evidence which supports alternative theories of causation. 24 Jarreau presented his own live testimony and the deposition of his treating physician, Dr. Jackson. Jarreau testified that he had no prior back problems and that his back started hurting either immediately or shortly after the collision occurred. Jarreau's expert, Dr. Jackson, stated that Jarreau does suffer from a back injury, but he (Dr. Jackson) could not tell if the injury resulted from the collision. 22 PATCO and JWT also presented an expert witness, Dr. Landry, who had personally examined Jarreau and reviewed x-rays of Jarreau's back that were taken only one month after the accident. The x-rays satisfied Dr. Landry that Jarreau had a degenerative disc disease and that the disease was caused by trauma. But Dr. Landry was also convinced that the trauma and the condition it caused predated the collision. Thus there was expert testimony that the collision did not cause Jarreau's condition but no such testimony that it did. 23 The district court observed that there is no objective evidence to aid the doctors in determining whether Jarreau, in fact, was injured in the accident at issue. Thus, stated the court, the answer to the question whether Jarreau was injured as a result of the collision is totally depend[ent] upon Jarreau's credibility when he says he had no prior back problems but had an onset of pain either immediately or shortly after the accident. Continuing, the court noted that two crew members of the M/V MISS CAROLYN testified that immediately after the accident Jarreau told them that he was not injured; and, within a week after the accident Jarreau himself gave a statement in which he denied having been injured in the collision. Based on Jarreau's conflicting statements and his manner and demeanor on the stand, the court expressly concluded that Jarreau's testimony regarding his injury was not credible. The court found as a matter of fact that the collision played no part whatsoever in injuring Jarreau. 24 As the trial court noted, the record contains no extrinsic, objective evidence proving precisely when or how Jarreau was injured. The court thus was faced with two equally plausible but diametrically opposed possibilities: Jarreau was injured in the collision or he was not. Based largely on its assessment of Jarreau's credibility, the district court found that Jarreau was not injured in the accident. Under the totality of the evidence, we cannot say that this was clear error, particularly when reviewing this finding under the highly deferential standard applicable to credibility calls by the trier of facts. 25 25 Weighing conflicting evidence and inferences and determining the relative credibility of witnesses to resolve factual disputes is the [factfinder's] province. 26 Its decisions must be accepted if the record contains 'competent and substantial evidence fairly tending to support the verdict ... even if different inferences and conclusions also might be supported by the evidence.'  27 In fact, the Supreme Court has admonished that when a trial judge's finding is based on his decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, that finding, if not internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error. 28 That is why we previously have written that if [t]he district court's finding is based in part on its assessment of the credibility of the witness[ ], we will not depart from such an assessment except in the very rarest of circumstances. 29 This case presents no such circumstances. 30 26 Jarreau appeals an evidentiary ruling of the district court that excluded evidence of medical records. Jarreau raises this issue in his opening brief, but he fails to make the argument. A question posed for appellate review but not argued in the opening brief is waived. 31 III