Court Opinion

ID: 9405717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 00:00:30.771867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.897209
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30221         Document: 00516803799             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/28/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                               FILED
                                                                             June 28, 2023
                                       No. 22-30221
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                Clerk

   Reginald Robert,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Jamie Maurice; Knight Transportation, Incorporated,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:18-CV-11632
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Reginald Robert filed a civil action in district court after allegedly
   being sideswiped by a tractor-trailer while driving in New Orleans in 2017.
   The driver of the tractor-trailer, Jamie Maurice, and his employer, Knight
   Transportation, Inc. (collectively “defendants”) maintained that Robert
   intentionally caused the accident pursuant to a larger scheme. After the jury
   returned a verdict only partially in Robert’s favor and did not award him

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30221      Document: 00516803799          Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/28/2023

                                    No. 22-30221

   damages, Robert filed this appeal challenging various rulings of the district
   court. For the reasons stated herein, we AFFIRM.
                   FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
          On November 28, 2017, Robert was driving a 2014 Toyota Tundra
   carrying three passengers on U.S. Highway 90 in New Orleans. Maurice was
   driving a 2015 Volvo tractor-trailer owned by Knight Transportation, Inc.,
   and was attempting to merge onto U.S. Highway 90 from the on-ramp when
   the two vehicles collided or sideswiped each other. Robert alleged that
   Maurice misjudged his clearance and improperly merged lanes while acting
   in the course and scope of his employment with Knight. The dash camera in
   the tractor-trailer showed that the trailer crossed over the solid white line as
   the truck merged.
          On November 27, 2018, Robert filed a civil action in district court
   against defendants, alleging negligence, liability, damages for injuries “not
   limited to her [sic] neck and back,” and property damage. Defendants
   answered, asserting an affirmative defense that Robert intentionally caused
   the accident.
          The district court ruled on various pretrial motions, including the
   following which are of significance here. By order dated September 26, 2019,
   the district court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary
   judgment, dismissing the claims alleging Knight’s negligence because Knight
   stipulated that Maurice was in the course and scope of his employment at the
   time of the accident. Importantly, Robert agreed to a consent judgment
   granting the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, which left

                                              2
Case: 22-30221        Document: 00516803799              Page: 3      Date Filed: 06/28/2023

                                         No. 22-30221

   his remaining claims against Maurice for negligence and against Knight for
   vicarious liability. On May 14, 2021, the district court denied Robert’s
   motion for partial summary judgment on medical causation. On October 15,
   2021, the district court denied Robert’s motion for partial summary
   judgment regarding defendants’ affirmative defense that he intentionally
   staged the accident. On March 11, 2022, the district court denied Robert’s
   motion in limine to exclude and/or limit certain cell phone records. This
   motion sought to exclude the following pieces of evidence: cell phone records
   as both inadmissible and a discovery sanction; the indictment of a non-party,
   Cornelius Garrison; testimony of Garrison’s criminal defense attorney,
   Claude Kelly; and Garrison’s deposition testimony in which he invoked his
   Fifth Amendment right.
           The matter was tried before a jury on March 21-23, 2022. The jury
   found that Maurice caused or contributed to the November 27, 2017 accident
   and therefore implicitly rejected defendants’ affirmative defense. But the
   jury also found that the accident was not the cause of Robert’s injuries and
   awarded no damages.1 Robert appealed.

           _____________________
           1
             The verdict form in this case asked jurors to answer several questions. The first
   question asked, “Has Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant
   Jamie Maurice caused or contributed to the November 28, 2017 motor vehicle collision?”
   The jury answered “YES.” The second question asked, “Do you find by a preponderance
   of the evidence that the November 28, 2017 motor vehicle collision was the cause of
   Plaintiff’s injuries?” The jury answered “NO” to this question and therefore did not
   answer the remaining questions on the verdict form.

                                                    3
Case: 22-30221      Document: 00516803799           Page: 4     Date Filed: 06/28/2023

                                     No. 22-30221

                           STANDARDS OF REVIEW
          This court reviews a district court’s decision to admit evidence for an
   abuse of discretion. See Hitt v. Connell, 301 F.3d 240, 250 (5th Cir. 2002). A
   district court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an erroneous
   view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Williams
   v. Manitowoc Cranes, L.L.C., 898 F.3d 607, 615 (5th Cir. 2018). Erroneous
   decisions under Rule 404(b) are subject to a harmless error inquiry. See
   Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 423 (5th Cir. 2006).
   Accordingly, “even if a district court has abused its discretion, [this court]
   will not reverse unless the error affected the substantial rights of the parties.”
   Williams, 898 F.3d at 615 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          The admission of a person’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment is
   generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. F.D.I.C. v. Fid. & Deposit Co.
   of Md., 45 F.3d 969, 977 (5th Cir. 1995). This court explained:
          The admissibility of a non-party’s exercise of the Fifth
          Amendment against a party, however, is a legal question that
          we must review de novo. Nevertheless, if such evidence is not
          inadmissible as a matter of law, the district court’s specific
          determination of relevance and its evaluation of a potential
          Fed. R. Evid. 403 problem are reviewed for abuse of
          discretion.
   Id.
          This court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment
   as a matter of law de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.
   Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477, 485 (5th Cir. 2008). Rule 50 provides that
   a judgment as a matter of law may be appropriate when “a party has been
   fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable

                                               4
Case: 22-30221      Document: 00516803799          Page: 5    Date Filed: 06/28/2023

                                    No. 22-30221

   jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party
   on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).
                                  DISCUSSION
   I. Whether the District Court Erred in Admitting Evidence Pertaining
   to Cornelius Garrison.
          Robert asserts that the district court erred in admitting evidence
   pertaining to Cornelius Garrison that included his indictment, deposition
   testimony, and the testimony of his defense attorney (the “Garrison
   evidence”). Robert denies any connection to Garrison and says that the
   “defendants turned this case into a trial of Cornelius Garrison, a non-party
   murder victim, who was indicated [sic] for insurance fraud in 2020
   concerning his involvement in staging his own 2015 accident.”
          Garrison was an alleged ringleader in a conspiracy to stage more than
   fifty vehicle accidents with tractor-trailers or buses in New Orleans.
   Allegedly, Garrison and his confederates netted hundreds of thousands of
   dollars in settlements from commercial carriers and insurance companies.
   Garrison was indicted for a scheme involving an accident in 2015 as well as
   conspiring with others to stage an accident in 2017. Garrison was murdered
   prior to his arraignment.
          Garrison’s indictment, which was admitted in this case, stated that
   Garrison’s scheme “targeted commercial vehicles, including tractor-trailers,
   that were changing lanes and would strike the commercial vehicle or tractor-
   trailer in their blind spot.” At trial, defendants called Garrison’s criminal
   defense attorney to testify about the indictment. Additionally, the district

                                              5
Case: 22-30221        Document: 00516803799              Page: 6       Date Filed: 06/28/2023

                                          No. 22-30221

   court admitted Garrison’s deposition testimony, taken in this case, in which
   he repeatedly asserted the Fifth Amendment. Taken together, defendants
   used this evidence “to show Mr. Robert intentionally caused the alleged
   accident subject of this litigation, with Mr. Garrison’s assistance, in a manner
   extremely similar to the ‘accident’ Mr. Garrison allegedly intentionally
   caused in 2015.”
           To further support this affirmative defense, the defendants offered
   the following evidence to connect Robert with Garrison: two phone calls
   about a week before the accident, 2 both had the same counsel, the same
   doctor, and that Robert’s accident occurred in the same area, during the same
   time period, and was of the same type as other accidents in the scheme. 3
   Moreover, testimony indicated that at least one additional vehicle stopped at
   the time of the accident and that someone may have left the scene. 4
           Robert carries the burden of showing that the admission of Garrison’s
   indictment, deposition testimony, and testimony from his attorney were
   prejudicial. See Williams, 898 F.3d at 615 (“The party asserting the error has
   the burden of proving that the error was prejudicial.” (internal quotation

           _____________________
           2
             Robert unsuccessfully attempts to dispute that there is any evidence Garrison
   used the telephone number that Robert called twice about a week before the accident.
   Robert also denies knowing Garrison.
           3
             Robert also asserts that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the
   other evidence. Also, one of the medical forms indicated that Robert identified his attorney
   as someone named “Shawn.”
           4
             Other evidence also established some discrepancies as to whether and how the
   passengers knew one another, whether Robert was injured, and whether Robert was the
   driver or a passenger.

                                                    6
Case: 22-30221        Document: 00516803799             Page: 7      Date Filed: 06/28/2023

                                        No. 22-30221

   marks and citation omitted)). Assuming without deciding that the district
   court abused its discretion in admitting the Garrison evidence, Robert has
   failed to show that such errors were prejudicial.                 The jury rejected
   defendants’ affirmative defense by finding that Maurice was the cause of the
   accident. Thus, the admission of the Garrison evidence, which was used to
   support the defendants’ unsuccessful affirmative defense, was harmless.5
           Robert argues that although he prevailed on the liability issue, the
   defendants also used the Garrison evidence to “attack the issue of medical
   causation—an issue the jury ruled against Plaintiff despite Defendants’
   failure to present any medical evidence to the contrary.” As discussed in
   more detail below, defendants pointed to evidence, independent of the
   Garrison evidence, to support the jury’s finding that Robert’s injuries were
   not caused by the November 28, 2017 accident. Thus, any error regarding
   the admission of the Garrison evidence was harmless given that there was a
   sufficient independent evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find a lack of
   medical causation. See id. at 627 (holding that the district court’s error in
   admitting certain evidence was harmless because independent evidence in
   the record “provided the jury sufficient evidence to find [the defendant]
   liable”). For these reasons, we conclude that any error the district court
   made in admitting the Garrison evidence was harmless.

           _____________________
           5
             Additionally, Robert has failed to demonstrate that he suffered substantial
   prejudice as a result of the district court’s admission of the audio statement he made to
   Progressive Insurance Company. See Brazos River Auth., 469 F.3d at 423.

                                                  7
Case: 22-30221          Document: 00516803799               Page: 8       Date Filed: 06/28/2023

                                           No. 22-30221

   II. Whether the District Court Erred in Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
   Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Issue of Medical Causation.6
           Robert asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion for
   judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil
   Procedure “because the jury lacked any legally sufficient evidentiary basis to
   conclude that Robert’s injuries were not caused by the accident based on the
   uncontroverted evidence presented.” The district court denied Robert’s
   motion, properly finding that there were disputed issues of fact for the jury
   to decide. The defendants assert that Robert did not make a motion for
   judgment as a matter of law. But the record indicates that Robert arguably
   made an ore tenus motion.
           However, Robert’s argument on this issue fails to consider that the
   jury was free to disagree with his assessment of the evidence. Further, Robert
   asserts that “all” of his treating physicians “confirmed that, in their medical
   opinion, his injuries resulted directly from the accident at issue.” Of the
   three record citations Robert offers in support of this argument, two citations

           _____________________
           6   Robert’s appeal of the denial of his motion for partial summary judgment as to
   defendants’ affirmative defense is moot because the jury found Maurice at fault for the
   accident. And, the denial of Robert’s motion for partial summary judgment as to medical
   causation is also not subject to review, as we do “not review the pretrial denial of a motion
   for summary judgment where on the basis of a subsequent full trial on the merits final
   judgment is entered adverse to the movant.” See Black v. J.I. Case Co., Inc.. 22 F.3d 568,
   569 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover, as set forth in this section, the evidence adduced at trial
   provided a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the defendants
   on medical causation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).

                                                      8
Case: 22-30221      Document: 00516803799          Page: 9   Date Filed: 06/28/2023

                                    No. 22-30221

   are to testimony from Dr. Eric Lonseth, and the last citation is to testimony
   from one of Robert’s passengers, Derrick Benn, who is not a treating
   physician.
          Contrary to Robert’s assertion, his treating physicians also confirmed
   facts indicating otherwise. For example, on cross-examination, Lonseth,
   Robert’s expert in pain management and anesthesiology, acknowledged that
   Robert denied a prior medical history during his initial visit and did not tell
   him about his preexisting neck and back injuries from similar accidents in
   January 2015, March 6, 2014, and May 29, 2013. Dr. Tony Giang, a
   chiropractor, testified to medical records that were actually signed by a Dr.
   Hung Cao. Giang confirmed that Robert also did not tell his office about his
   prior accidents in 2013, 2014 and 2015, the resulting neck and back pain, or
   his three separate lawsuits. Robert also indicated on his intake paperwork
   that he was the front passenger in the vehicle.
          This testimony alone provides a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for
   a reasonable jury to find for the defendants on medical causation. See Fed.
   R. Civ. P. 50(a). Thus, the district court did not err in denying judgment
   as a matter of law.
          For these reasons, we AFFIRM.

                                             9