Gowdy v. Marine Spill Response Corporation
3:16-cv-00169
S.D. Tex.Oct 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff James E. Gowdy sued Marine Spill Response Corporation alleging a left-foot injury while working as a temporary worker aboard the NEW JERSEY RESPONDER in August 2013.
- Gowdy filed suit June 29, 2016; counsel withdrew early and Gowdy proceeded pro se for most of the case.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending Gowdy had pre-existing diabetic complications and cannot establish medical causation linking defendant’s negligence to his foot problems.
- Defendant relied on a biomechanical/accident-reconstruction expert who reviewed records and opined the foot problems resulted from diabetes, not the described workplace incident.
- Gowdy submitted a late response and medical summaries and a redacted deposition of a treating physician but did not provide authenticated, non-redacted records or an expert rebuttal explaining causation.
- The court found Gowdy failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on causation and granted summary judgment for Defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gowdy can prove employer negligence under the Jones Act caused his foot injury | Gowdy says the workplace incident caused his foot injury and challenges defendant's expert’s site information and methods | Defendant says expert opinion shows diabetes — not the incident — caused the foot problems; no medical causation shown | Court: No genuine dispute on causation; summary judgment for Defendant |
| Admissibility/weight of Gowdy’s medical records and physician testimony | Gowdy submitted recent summaries and a treating physician deposition to rebut defendant’s expert | Defendant argues Gowdy’s documents are redacted, unauthenticated, lack business records affidavit, and lack expert interpretation | Court: Gowdy’s materials insufficient to create a material fact dispute; they do not meaningfully contradict defendant’s expert |
| Whether unseaworthiness claim survives if Jones Act claim fails | Gowdy alleges unseaworthiness in addition to Jones Act negligence | Defendant contends unseaworthiness fails if Jones Act causation fails | Court: If Jones Act claim fails for lack of causation, unseaworthiness claim also fails; summary judgment appropriate |
| Timeliness/acceptance of Gowdy’s response filings | Gowdy’s response was filed close in time to summary judgment and was docketed; court considered it liberally | Defendant did not rely on procedural defects to bar the response | Court: Court considered Gowdy’s filing (and treated it leniently) but found substantive insufficiency as dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 1997) (Jones Act negligence standard; employer duty of care)
- In re Cooper/T. Smith, 929 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1991) (requirement of proof on essential elements at summary judgment; permissive inferences limited)
- Brister v. A.W.I., Inc., 946 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1991) (unseaworthiness requires proximate cause/substantial factor showing)
- Speer v. Taira Lynn Marine, Ltd., Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 826 (S.D. Tex. 2000) (unseaworthiness claim limited to crew members injured on the vessel)
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (seaman status requires substantial connection to vessel in navigation)