united states district court eastern district of …x 72 ft. pipe-laying barge owned and operated by...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

STEVE GRANGER, IV

VERSUS

BISSO MARINE, LLC and

BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS, LLC

CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:15–cv-00477

SECTION: “L” (3)

JUDGE ELDON E. FALLON

MAGISTRATE DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III

ORDER

After considering the MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF

STEVE GRANGER, IV, it is ORDERED that the Judgment on a Jury Verdict be made part

of the record of this matter and that there be judgment in favor of Steve Granger, IV as

set forth in said Judgment.

New Orleans, Louisiana this _____ day of October, 2016

_______________________________________THE HONORABLE ELDON E. FALLON, JUDGE

6th

Case 2:15-cv-00477-EEF-DEK Document 153 Filed 10/07/16 of 1

Case 2:15-cv-00477-EEF-DEK Document 149 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 3

MINUTE ENTRY FALLON, J. SEPTEMBER 26, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

STEVE GRANGER, IV CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 15-477

BISSO MARINE, LLC, ET AL SECTION: L (3)

BEFORE JUDGE ELDON E. FALLON Monday, September 26, 2016, 8: 40am Case Manager: Dean Oser Court Reporter: Jodi Simcox

Appearances: Frank Lamothe, III, Esq., Richard Martin, Jr., Esq. and Michelle Cumberland, E s q . f o r P l a i n t i f f

Wilton Bland, III, Esq. and Trevor Cutaiar, Esq. for Defendant Bollinger Shipyards, LLC

JURY TRIAL Case called; all present and ready. Notice for Removal of Exhibits distributed to all counsel. Jury called, sworn on Oath of Voir Dire, and being found acceptable, sworn on Oath to Truly Try Case. Opening Statements

Plaintiff's Witnesses: Steve Granger, IV - sworn and testified Dustin Bagwell - sworn and testified Corey Phelps – sworn and testified

Court adjourned at 4:54pm until Tuesday, September 27, 2016, at 8:45am

JS10: 6:29





VERSUS NO. 15-477


BEFORE JUDGE ELDON E. FALLON Tuesday, September 27, 2016, 9:00 am Case Manager: Dean Oser (Continued from September 26, 2016) Court Reporter: Jodi Simcox



JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff=s Witnesses Continued: Randolph Rice - sworn, offered as an expert economist, accepted and testified Bobby s. Roberts - sworn, offered as an expert in vocational evaluations – accepted and testified Robert Borison – sworn, offered as an expert in maritime safety with experience in lay barges – accepted and testified Out of the presence of the Jury: The Court addresses the parties regarding objections to certain parts of Dr. McBryde’s deposition. Jury returns Testimony of Dr. Angus McBryde – via video deposition Plaintiff rests

Defendant's Witnesses: Dr. David Wyatt Aiken – sworn, offered as an expert in the field of orthopedics, accepted and testified Testimony of Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux, Defendant’s expert economist- via video deposition

Court adjourned at 5:36 pm until Wednesday, September 28, 2016, at 10:30 am

JS10: 6:32





VERSUS NO. 15-477 BISSO MARINE, LLC, ET AL SECTION: L (3) BEFORE JUDGE ELDON E. FALLON Wednesday, September 28, 2016, 10:37 am Case Manager: Dean Oser (Continued from September 27, 2016) Court Reporter: Jodi Simcox Appearances: Frank Lamothe, III, Esq., Richard Martin, Jr., Esq. and Michelle Cumberland, Esq. for Plaintiff


JURY TRIAL Defendant’s Witnesses Continued: Terrell Daniel Babin – sworn and testified Carla Seyler – sworn, offered as an expert in vocational rehabilitation counseling – accepted and testified Dustin Bagwell – recalled, previously sworn, testified Defendant rests and Jury was excused for the day Defendant’s Rule 50a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law- Argument - DENIED Plaintiff’s Motion for Directed Verdict on Issue of Liability – Argument - DENIED Court adjourned at 3:36 pm until Thursday, September 29, 2016, at 10:00 am JS10: 3:17





VERSUS NO. 15-477


BEFORE JUDGE ELDON E. FALLON Thursday, September 29, 2016, 9:57 am Case Manager: Dean Oser (Continued from September 28, 2016) Court Reporter: Jodi Simcox



JURY TRIAL Out of the Presence of the Jury: Parties' Objections to the Jury Charges were addressed by the Court.

Jury returns Closing Arguments. Jury charged and instructed by Court. Jury retires for deliberation at 12:46pm

Jury returned from deliberations at 4:06 pm

VERDICT: - See verdict form attached. The Court orders that the verdict be entered into the record and be made judgment of the Court. Jury polled; all answer in affirmative.

The Jury is thanked and excused.

JS10: 2:51


1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

STEVE GRANGER IV VERSUS BISSO MARINE, LLC and BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS, LLC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* CIVIL ACTION: 15-477 * * JUDGE: FALLON * * SECTION: "L" * * MAGISTRATE: KNOWLES

PRE-TRIAL ORDER

1. A pre-trial conference is scheduled in this matter pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure on the 13th day of September, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

2. Counsel will appear as follows:

For the plaintiff: Frank E. Lamothe III, T.A. (#07945) Richard M. Martin, Jr. (#08998) LAMOTHE LAW FIRM, LLC 400 Poydras Street, Suite 1760 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: 504-704-1414 [email protected] [email protected] For the defendant: Sidney Angelle (#1002) Bisso Marine, LLC Brant Cacamo, T.A. (#26227) LOBMAN, CARNAHAN, BATT, ANGELLE & NADER 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2300 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: 504-586-9292 [email protected]


2

For the defendant: Wilton E. Bland, III, T.A. (#3123) Bollinger Shipyards, LLC Juan C. Obregon (#35273)

Trevor Cutaiar (#33082) MOULEDOUX, BLAND, LEGRAND & BRACKETT. LLC 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 Telephone: 504-595-3000 Facsimile: 504-522-2121

E-mail:[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

3. Description of the parties:

a.) Plaintiff:

Steve Granger, IV (“Plaintiff”), was an employee of Power Dynamics, LLC

(“PDI”), a contractor providing hydraulic equipment services aboard the L/B SUPER

CHIEF, a “lay barge” bareboat chartered by owner pro hac vice Bisso Marine, LLC

(“Bisso”), and docked at Bollinger Shipyards, LLC’s (“Bollinger”) Amelia, Louisiana,

ship yard on June 12, 2014.

b.) Defendant, Bollinger:

Bollinger Shipyards, LLC (“Bollinger”) was at all material times owner and

operator of a shipyard located in Amelia, Louisiana. Bollinger had been hired by Bisso

Marine, LLC (“Bisso”) to perform renovations to the Lay Barge SUPER CHIEF, a 265 ft.

x 72 ft. pipe-laying barge owned and operated by Bisso. Bollinger performed various

tasks at the direction of Bisso.

c.) Defendant, Bisso:

Bisso Marine, LLC, is the bareboat charterer of the L/B Super Chief, a pipe laying

barge.

4. Jurisdictional statement: Jurisdiction is proper, as is venue.


3

5. Motions pending or contemplated: a.) Plaintiff:

Plaintiff has no motions pending. Plaintiff may offer instanter motions in limine

should the need arise.


Rule 59(e) Motion/Motion for Reconsideration.

c.) Defendant, Bisso: Bisso has no motions pending. 6. Summary of material facts:

a.) Plaintiff:

Steve Granger, IV, was an employee of PDI, an independent contractor hired by

Bisso to provide hydraulic equipment services aboard the L/B SUPER CHIEF. On June

12, 2014, the vessel was berthed in navigable waters at Bollinger’s Amelia, Louisiana,

ship yard. Plaintiff’s work area was on the main deck, in the bow area.

Plaintiff was injured when, for the very first time, he was summoned to the

starboard “01” level of the vessel because a PDI welding machine was malfunctioning.

This is the level immediately above the main deck. Using maritime terms, the “deck” of

the starboard “01” level is the overhead (roof) of the four main deck level pipe welding

stalls. The welding machine was stationed on the roof of stall #4 by Bisso and Bollinger.

The welding leads from this machine descended to the main deck and then ran forward to

the bow area. They did not cross the roof of stalls #2 or #3. Further, PDI performed no

work whatsoever on either roof. The location of the accident was not PDI’s “work area,”

and Plaintiff was under no obligation to inspect it for hazards.


4

The focus of the case is the roof of stall #2, which is forward of stalls #3 and #4.

Just before Plaintiff’s accident, Bollinger, on behalf of Bisso, had removed and replaced

the roof of stall #3. However, the “finished product” was 2 inches higher than the roof of

stall #2. Bollinger also cut the three rows of “headache” bars which were previously

perpendicular to the path way atop stall #2, and which had prevented access to the roof of

stall #3. Plaintiff observed these bars being cut by Bollinger welding personnel shortly

before his accident.

When Bollinger cut these bars – no doubt at Bisso’s behest -- it created a new

pathway from the roof of stall #2 to the roof of stall #3. Most of the pathway atop stall #2

is two feet higher than the roof of stall #3, and two grated steps descend at the aft end of

stall #2. At the base of these steps is a 23 inch dark-colored landing area which

inexplicably contains a dark-colored 3 inch high flange which is perpendicular to the

pathway. This trip hazard has no known function. This flange is parallel to and

approximately 3 inches from the roof juncture of stalls #2 and #3. Thus, roof of stall #3

is also a trip hazard because it is 2 inches higher than the roof of stall #2.

On June 12, 2014, PDI’s welding machine malfunctioned, and for the very first

time, Plaintiff ascended to the starboard “01” level and walked aft on the pathway atop

stall #2. He intended to descend the steps, walk on the new pathway created where the

headache bars had just been cut, walk across the new roof of stall #3, and then arrive at

the welding machine on the roof of stall #4. As photographs depicting the steps, landing,

and flange will show, the area was cluttered, heavily shadowed, and the flange was

essentially the same color as the landing. The photographs will also show that when

viewed from the perspective of a person descending the steps, there was no vertical


5

perspective of the flange, which essentially disappeared into the dark background.

Bollinger contends that “At no time did Bisso ask Bollinger to perform any work

or modifications on the roof of stall No. 2.” This representation is completely

contradicted by photographs which will be introduced into evidence. Bollinger cut the

length of the three stall #2 rooftop pathway headache bars twice, performed finishing

work on them, enlarged the grating on the steps, and also painted portions warning

yellow. In other words, by cutting the headache bars, Bollinger provided direct access to

a tripping hazard. Bisso, in turn, failed to warn anyone about this concealed hazard.

Bollinger contends that “At all times Bisso was in control of roof No. 2, and at no

time turned it over to Bollinger for Bollinger to perform any work. Bisso was in control

of the roof of stall No. 2 at the time of the accident.” This is refuted by the fact that

photographs show that Bollinger altered the path way atop stall #2, and another

document shows that Bollinger did not return “custody and control” of the rooftop of stall

#3 to Bisso’s control until ten days after Plaintiff’s accident.

Further, Plaintiff saw Bollinger workmen cut the bars, and Bollinger’s foreman

testified that it was known the flange would be in the pathway. The foreman also

testified that Bollinger was under a duty of care toward other independent contractor’s

employees. For its part, Bisso knew the flange was there, and had to give its consent

before Bollinger turned the prior cul-de-sac on the roof of stall #2 into a pathway by

removing the headache bars.

Plaintiff did not see the flange. He put his right foot on the landing, which at only

23 inches (instead of 36) was not sufficiently deep, and then stepped forward with his left

foot. Immediately, his left foot caught on the upright 3 inch flange, and rolled sharply


6

underneath his lower leg. Plaintiff sustained not only a severe ankle sprain, but also the

torsional impact of the tibia bone on the talus bone caused what is known as an

osteochondral lesion: “osteo” damage to the talar bone’s dome where it was partially

crushed by the tibia, and “chondral” because the cartilage on the talus bone was also

damaged by impact and the foot-twisting.

Defendants contend that Mr. Granger suffered an earlier osteochondral injury in

2010 while exiting a helicopter. However, eleven months before his accident, on July 1,

2013, Mr. Granger passed PDI’s pre-employment physical at the office of Delora

Denney, MD. This “normal physical exam” noted that he had “no ankle edema” and

“Full range of motion is good in the lower extremities and the strength is normal.”

Thereafter, until June 12, 2014, Mr. Granger performed his medium to heavy labor job

for PDI without any complaint or physical disability.

Plaintiff’s treating orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Angus McBryde, has testified that

Mr. Granger could not have passed this 2013 physical examination if he was [then]

suffering from the same ankle conditions which presented after the June 12, 2014

accident. Those were so severe that they lead to surgeries on November 5, 2014 (by Dr.

Letenoff) and October 9, 2015 (by Dr. McBryde). Further, it is Dr. McBryde’s medical

opinion that the June 12, 2014 accident alone caused Plaintiff’s injury and permanent

physical disability. Inter alia, Dr. McBryde offered the medical opinions that:

* Plaintiff has a 40% permanent impairment of the left foot which will not improve. * He will be restricted sedentary, light duty employment, with no impact loading or

heavy lifting. * He will not have the ability to do his former medium to heavy labor job of

installing hydraulic systems.


7

* He is restricted to lifting less than 25 pounds occasionally.

Vocational evaluation counselor Bobby Roberts notes that Plaintiff relied upon

his physical capacities to perform medium to perform heavy skilled work in the past. $24

per hour, typically working 60 hours per week. His prognosis for return to prior work is

non-existent. While he has no skill base for sedentary work, he does have academic and

innate ability levels where he could acquire them. These are typically performed indoors

on a 40 hour or less per week basis. Even with successful sedentary skill development,

he will have lost 50% of his earning capacity.

Through September 12, 2016, Amerisafe Risk Services, Inc. has paid to Plaintiff

indemnity benefits in the amount of $84,565.95, medical benefits in the amount of

$45,562.44, “second opinion” fees of $900, and imaging fees of $823.58. Total

compensation benefits are $131,851.97. The insuring agreement between Amerisafe and

PDI contains a waiver of subrogation clause, extending at least to work performed by

PDI for Bisso, and perhaps extending to Bollinger.

Plaintiff’s “tax return” income average is $65,400 per year, and the Dept. of

Labor average for a helicopter mechanic is $58,390. Economist Randolph Rice, Ph.D.,

computes Mr. Granger’s economic losses on a “tax return” basis, as follows: total

economic loss is $660,000 based on a past loss of $140,000 and a future loss of $520,000.

Future loss has been reduced by 50% for account for a future sedentary job, with 19.8

years of work life expectancy instead of 25.59 years to full S.S. benefits at age 67.

Plaintiff contends that Bisso is liable pursuant to Louisiana law, and alternatively

under 33 U.S.C. § 905b as interpreted in Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos,

451 U.S. 156, 68 L.Ed 1, 101 S.Ct. 1614 (1981). In particular, Bisso failed to exercise


8

ordinary care under the circumstances to turn over a reasonably safe vessel to that

Plaintiff could safely perform his duties; turned over a vessel with an openly dangerous

condition which constituted a breach of Bisso’s duty of care; failed to warn Plaintiff of

hazards and hidden defects that were not known or obvious to him; failed to exercise

reasonable care to correct a hazardous and hidden conditions that were not known or

obvious to Plaintiff; and failed to exercise due care to avoid exposing Plaintiff to harm

from hazards he encountered in areas under Bisso’s active control during shipyard repair

activities.

Plaintiff contends that Bollinger is liable pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code articles

2315, 2316, 2317, and 2320, and the concept of garde as interpreted in Ross v. La Coste

de Monterville, 502 So.2d 1026, 1030 (La.1987) and Ellison v. Conoco, Inc., 950 F.2d

1196, 1208 (5th Cir. 1992).


Bollinger was hired by Bisso Marine to perform renovations to Bisso’s Lay Barge

SUPER CHIEF. The L/B SUPER CHIEF has dimensions of 265 ft. by 72 ft. The L/B

SUPER CHIEF was built in 1999. Bisso towed the L/B SUPER CHIEF to Bollinger’s

shipyard at Ameila, Louisiana. Working at the direction of Bisso, Bollinger undertook

various tasks aboard the L/B SUPER CHIEF from April 24, 2014 to July 6, 2014. At all

times Bisso had a full crew on board the SUPER CHIEF that was also involved in the

renovations.

One of these tasks was to remove the roof from welding stall No. 3, strengthen it,

and re-install it. The roofs of the welding stalls are utilized to store equipment. Over

time the roof of welding stall No. 3 had become bowed due to the weight of equipment


9

placed on it. Bisso instructed Bollinger to remove the roof and weld square steel tubing

to its underside to stiffen it so that it would not flex and distort when equipment was

placed on it. Following Bisso’s instructions Bollinger removed the roof of stall No. 3

with a crane and placed it on the shore. Bollinger’s personnel then placed yellow caution

tape across the adjacent roof of stall No. 2 so that persons walking on it would not fall

into the void created while the roof of stall No. 3 was being worked on. After Bollinger

installed the tubing it used a crane and replaced the roof on stall No. 3. Bollinger then

removed the yellow caution tape and went on to perform other tasks on other parts of the

L/B SUPER CHIEF.

At no time did Bisso ask Bollinger to perform any work or modifications on the

roof of stall No. 2.

Days after Bollinger had completed its assignment on the roof of stall No. 3,

Steve Granger (“Granger”), a foreman employed by a company called Power Dynamics,

LLC (“PDI”) tripped over a metal flange sticking up from the roof of stall No. 2 as he

was walking with two of his crew to check their welding machine which had been placed

on the roof of one of the welding stalls. As a result, he sustained an injury to his left

ankle.

PDI had entered into a contract with Bisso to install a new hydraulic system in the

welding stalls. The PDI crew consisted of four men including Granger.

Bollinger had completed its work on the roof of stall No. 3 and reinstalled it seven

to ten days before Granger tripped. Bollinger had no employees on the roofs. Bollinger

was not performing any work on or in the vicinity of the roofs. It had moved on to work

on other parts of the barge. Bisso never asked or instructed Bollinger to remove or


10

modify the flange. The flange was in place on the roof of stall No. 2 when Bisso brought

the L/B SUPER CHIEF to Bollinger’s yard. Judging from its rusted and pitted condition

the flange had been in place for years.

At all times Bisso was in control of roof No. 2, and at no time turned it over to

Bollinger for Bollinger to perform any work. Bisso was in control of the roof of stall No.

2 at the time of the accident.

Bollinger did not create the flange. It did not create any hazard. Bollinger

performed its work to the satisfaction of Bisso. Bollinger was not negligent in the

manner in which it strengthened the roof of stall No. 3. At all times Bollinger acted in a

safe and reasonable manner.

Bollinger was not negligent. It did not breach any duty owed Granger. Nothing

Bollinger did caused Granger to trip.

The flange was plainly visible to anyone looking where they were going. It was

an open and obvious condition. As the PDI foreman, Granger was responsible to make

sure that the area where his crew were working was reasonably safe. This included the

path his crew used to go to and from the PDI welding machine in order to turn it on and

off and service it. Granger failed to do anything to make sure that the path to the welding

machine was clear of tripping hazards. He had not even looked at, much less inspected,

the route to their welding machine or the roof of stall No. 2 before he tripped.

Because the flange was open, obvious and clearly visible, and because Ganger

was negligent in his role as the PDI foreman to make sure their work area was clear of

potential hazards, Granger is responsible for his accident and injury.

Bollinger had nothing to do with cutting any “headache bars” or creating or


11

altering a path for Granger to walk on the roof of Stall No. 2. This is a fiction created by

Granger and is contradicted by the facts. In fact, Granger has already testified that he

knew of nothing that Bollinger could have done to cause his accident.

The fact is that Bollinger had completed its work on the roof of Stall No. 3 days

before Granger tripped over the flange on the roof of Stall No. 2. Bollinger had no

“garde” or control over the roofs of either Stall No. 2 or Stall No. 3 at the time Granger

tripped. It had no one present and no one involved.


Liability:

Plaintiff, Steve Granger, IV, filed this personal injury case against Bisso and

Bollinger for alleged injuries as a result of a trip and fall on June 12, 2014 aboard the L/B

Super Chief. Bisso Marine is the bareboat charterer of the L/B Super Chief, a pipe laying

barge. The L/B Super Chief was berthed at Bollinger Shipyards undergoing various

modifications and repairs. Bisso hired Bollinger to conduct a number of the

modifications and repairs. Included in the various modifications was the removal and

renovation of the roof top above Welding Stall #3, which was immediately next to

Welding Stall #2. Bisso also hired Power Dynamics (PDI) to design and install upgrades

associated with the pipe laying system. Mr. Granger was employed by PDI as the

supervisor of the PDI crew working on the LB Super Chief project.

On June 12, 2014, prior to the subject accident, Mr. Granger, as the PDI

supervisor, executed a Job Safety Agreement (JSA) and a Hot Work Permit requiring Mr.

Granger to conduct an inspection of the worksite for potential hazards. As part of the

work being performed by the PDI crew, PDI had a welding machine on the rooftop of


12

Welding Stall #3. While PDI crew were using the welding machine, the PDI welding

machine stopped working. Mr. Granger and fellow PDI employees, Michael Carver and

Jesse Crawford, went to check on PDI’s welding machine. Even though PDI’s welding

machine was on the rooftop of Welding Stall #3, Mr. Granger claims that he did not

previously inspect or walk on the rooftop of Welding Stall #3. Plaintiff claims that as he

was walking from the roof top of Welding Stall #2 to the roof top of Welding Stall #3 he

tripped and fell. While Mr. Granger has testified that his foot caught something as he

was walking from the rooftop of Welding Stall #2 to the rooftop of Welding Stall #3, Mr.

Granger does not know whether his foot went into a gap created between a piece of angle

iron attached to the rooftop of Welding Stall #2 and the new height of the rooftop of

Welding Stall #3.

Bisso disputes that the transition from the rooftop of Welding Stall #2 to the

rooftop of Welding Stall #3 was an unreasonably dangerous condition. Bisso Marine will

submit the testimony of expert Arthur Sargent to support the fact that the alleged

defective angle iron was an open and obvious condition which would have been seen by

Mr. Granger had he been looking where he was stepping. Mr. Sargent opines that the

design and arrangement of the L/B Super Chief is typical for offshore pipelay barges and

the walkways on board of the L/B Super Chief were reasonable and satisfactory for the

safe transit of crew and workers. The L/B Super Chief has been inspected by the US

Coast Guard, including its walkways, in which the US Coast Guard certified that the

vessel, in all respects, is in conformity with the applicable vessel inspection laws and the

rules and regulations prescribed. Mr. Sargent opines that the L/B Super Chief met all

applicable governmental regulations.


13

Dustin Bagwell was Bollinger’s Project Manager assigned to the L/B Super Chief

project. Prior to Mr. Granger’s alleged fall, Bollinger removed the rooftop above

Welding Stall #3 and refabricated it to make it stronger. Before removing the roof top

above Welding Stall #3, Mr. Bagwell inspected the area. Mr. Bagwell confirms that he

knew the piece of angle iron was present between the rooftop of Welding Stall #2 and

Welding Stall #3. Mr. Bagwell nor any other Bollinger employee indicated or reported

that this piece of angle iron created a potential hazard.

In relation to the work being done on the rooftop of Welding Stall #3, Bollinger

marked off the area with caution tape and cable to prevent people from walking from the

catwalk on the rooftop of Welding Stall #2 to the area where the rooftop of Welding Stall

#3 was removed. The alleged angle iron was within this roped off area. After renovating

the rooftop of Welding Stall #3, Bollinger reinstalled the roof top. When the rooftop of

Welding Stall #3 was installed, it was not level with the rooftop of Welding Stall #2.

This created a gap between the newly installed rooftop of Welding Stall #3 and the angle

iron on the rooftop of Welding Stall #2.

While Bisso disputes that the angel iron or the walkway on top of Welding Stall

#3 was an unreasonably dangerous condition, after the rooftop of Welding Stall #3 was

reinstalled by Bollinger, Bollinger knew that the transition from the rooftop of Welding

Stall #2 and the rooftop of Welding Stall #3 was going to be a walkway area. In addition

to Mr. Bagwell inspecting the area of the roof renovations, Bollinger leaderman, Jeremy

Connor, also was in charge of inspecting Bollinger’s work for any potential trip and fall

hazards. At some point after the rooftop of Welding Stall #3 was installed and prior to

Mr. Granger’s alleged fall, Bollinger made the decision to remove the caution tape and


14

cable wire to allow people to walk in the area of the roof repair even though they knew

the angle iron was present. Bollinger’s opening up the area to foot traffic created the

alleged defect plaintiff claims caused his fall. Even after the rooftop of Welding Stall #3

was installed and Bollinger opened up the area for people to walk, Bollinger never

reported any potential hazards in the area. At the time of Mr. Granger’s incident,

Bollinger had not returned their work cite back over to Bisso Marine.

Medical:

Plaintiff is asserting claims for a left ankle injury. While Mr. Granger has denied

any prior left ankle injuries or complaints to his treating physicians and through

discovery in this matter, the facts and medical records confirm that Mr. Granger did have

a preexisting ankle injury.

On April 9, 2010 plaintiff was seen at Orange Grove Urgent Care with complaints

of left ankle pain after jumping off of a Blackhawk helicopter at work. Defense

Independent Medical Examiner, Dr. David Aiken, Jr. reviewed the left ankle X-rays

taken April 9, 2010 and confirmed that the osteochondral defect in the medial and

posterior dome of the talus was present in 2010.

On June 12, 2014, the day of the subject accident, plaintiff was seen at the ER at

Teche Regional Medical Center at which time X-rays of the left ankle showed an

osteochondral defect in the dome of the talus. Dr. Aiken has confirmed that this is the

same osteochondral defect reflected in the April 9, 2010 x-rays.

On June 17, 2014 plaintiff began treating with Dr. Eric Letonoff in regards to the

left ankle. On August 1, 2014 Dr Letonoff sent plaintiff to Garden Park Medical and for

a left ankle CT scan. The radiologist’s impression was 1) chronic appearing


15

osteochondritis desiccatia and medial talar dome with subchondral collapse evidence; 2)

small ossific density distal to the tip of the lateral malleolus, potentially representing an

avulsion fracture. Dr. Letonoff recommended treating this conservatively like an ankle

sprain.

On November 5, 2014 Dr. Lettonoff performed an arthroscopic debridement of

the ankle as well as subchondralplasty of the medial talar dome at Garden Park Medical.

This subchondralplasty was to repair the preexisting osteochondral defect.

On November 20, 2014 plaintiff returned to Dr. Lettonoff for his first post-op visit.

Plaintiff reported that his pain had greatly decreased. He was not taking any medication.

The physical exam showed no swelling and relatively non-tender motion. Plaintiff’s

sutures were removed and he was placed in a short leg fiberglass cast.

By February 26, 2015 plaintiff reported being pain free and denied any swelling.

He stated he was ready to start ambulation. He indicated that he had tried to put weight

on his foot and had no pain. Lettenoff recommended progressive weight bearing at 25%

increments per week. Plaintiff declined any pain medication and continued PT and home

exercise program.

On June 18, 2015 plaintiff returned to Lettenoff complaining that his pain was

improved, but still had loss of motion. The x-rays taken at this time showed that the

osteochondral defect had resolved. Lettenoff felt that plaintiff should be back to his full

activity level. Therefore, Lettenoff recommend plaintiff get a second opinion.

On July 29, 2015 plaintiff was seen by Dr. Angus McBryde, Jr. at the University

of Southern Alabama in Mobile. As indicated above, plaintiff denied having any prior

complaints with his left ankle to Dr. McBryde. Dr. McBryde testified that the


16

osteochondral defect shown on the x-rays taken the day of plaintiff’s fall, was more likely

than not pre-existing and would likely be causing symptoms prior to the accident. Dr.

McBryde performed an examination under anesthesia on October 8, 2015. During the

examination McBryde confirmed that the scaring from the first procedure was extensive

and was likely plaintiff’s main problem.

By April 29, 2016 Dr. McBryde opined that plaintiff was likely at MMI and

would have a 40% disability to his ankle. McBrydge indicates that plaintiff will be

restricted to light duty work. While Dr. Aiken agrees with Dr. McBryde April 29, 2016

findings, Dr. Aiken confirms that the plaintiff’s medical condition is unrelated to our

accident and is a result of the preexisting osteochondral defect.

Prior to have the 2010 medical records and x-rays which confirmed plaintiff’s

prior left ankle injury, Dr. Aiken’s review of the x-rays taken the day of the accident at

Teche Regional confirmed that the osteochondral defect of the medial talus of the left

ankle was preexisting. Dr. Aiken opines that based on the size of the osteochondral

defect and the fact that the subchondral bone collapsed it is “not believable that his left

ankle was not giving him any problems prior to the June 12, 2014 accident”. Dr. Aiken

opines that that plaintiff had an ankle sprain as a result of his fall on June 12, 2014 which

could take 3-4 months to recover. Aiken confirms that the preexisting osteochondral

defect would not have healed on its own and Dr. Letonoff’s surgery was required.

7. Uncontested facts: a.) Plaintiff:

1. Bisso’s vessel was berthed on navigable waters at Bollinger’s Amelia, Louisiana,

ship yard.



17

1. Bollinger owns and operates a shipyard in Ameila, Louisiana. 2. Granger was employed by Power Dynamics as foreman. 3. Bollinger had been hired by Bisso to perform various tasks at the direction of

Bisso aboard the L/B SUPER CHIEF. 4. Power Dynamics had been hired by Bisso to install a new hydraulic system in the

welding stalls on the L/B SUPER CHIEF. 5. The Power Dynamics crew had elected to place their welding machine on the roof

of one of the welding stalls. 6. In order to go to and from the welding machine it was necessary for the Power

Dynamics crew to walk on the roof of stall No. 2 where the flange was located. c.) Defendant, Bisso: 1. Bisso Marine is the bareboat charterer of the L/B Super Chief, a pipe laying

barge.

2. Bisso hired Bollinger to conduct modifications and repairs to L/B Super Chief. 3. Bisso hired Power Dynamics (PDI) to design and install upgrades associated with

the pipe laying system. 4. Mr. Granger was employed by PDI as the supervisor of the PDI crew working on

the LB Super Chief project.

8. Contested issues of fact: a.) Plaintiff:

1. The extent of Plaintiff’s injury. 2. Whether the medical condition about which Plaintiff complains pre-

existed his alleged accident. 3. The facts and circumstances of Plaintiff’s accident. 4. Whether the flange on which Plaintiff tripped was a concealed hazard. 5. Whether at the time of Plaintiff’s accident the location of the flange was

under the active control of Bisso and/or Bollinger.


18

6. Whether Bisso as the owner of the L/B SUPER CHIEF failed in its duty to provide Plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to work or warn him of a potential hazard.

7. Whether at the time of Plaintiff’s accident Bollinger had control over the

place where the flange was located. 8. Whether at the time of Plaintiff’s accident the flange was in Bollinger’s

“work area”. 9. Whether Bollinger failed in any duty it owed Plaintiff and whether such

failure was a legal cause of Plaintiff’s accident. 10. Whether Bollinger created a hazardous condition when it cut the headache

bars on the path way of stall #2’s roof and enlarged the steps. 11. Whether Bollinger is liable to Plaintiff. 12. Whether Bisso is liable to Plaintiff. 13. The economic impact and/or diminution of economic earning capacity. 14. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages for past or future loss of income

and/or earning capacity. 15. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to general damages. 16. Bisso Marine is the owner and operator of the L/B SUPER CHIEF, which

was built in 1999. 17. PDI performed no work on the roofs of stalls #2 and #3.

18. Plaintiff tripped on a metal flange sticking up on the roof of stall No. 2.

19. The flange had been in place for a long time, and was in that location

when Bisso brought the L/B SUPER CHIEF to Bollinger’s yard.

20. Bisso never instructed Bollinger to repair, modify or mark the flange on the roof of stall No. 2.

21. The day that Granger fell was the first time that he had been on the roof of

stall No. 2. 22. At all material times Bisso had a full crew on board the L/B SUPER

CHIEF including Superintendents, foremen and crew.


19

23. On June 12, 2014, Plaintiff was employed by PDI, and was providing harbor worker services aboard Bisso’s vessel.

24. Plaintiff’s work area was on the vessel’s main deck, in the bow.

25. Plaintiff tripped over the flange located in the pathway on the roof of stall

#2, and was injured. 26. Bollinger lifted PDI’s welding machine aboard the vessel on the roof and

spotted it on the roof of welding stall #4. 27. Bollinger knew the flange was in the path way. 28. Prior to June 12, 2014, Bollinger removed the headache bars which

prevented access from the path way on the roof of stall #2 to the roof of stall #3.


1. Whether Plaintiff had an accident as he claims. 2. Whether Plaintiff sustained any injury as he claims. 3. The extent of Plaintiff’s injury. 4. Whether the medical condition about which Plaintiff complains pre-

existed his alleged accident. 5. The facts and circumstances of Plaintiff’s accident. 6. Whether Plaintiff was negligent in failing to see the flange he should have

seen and caused his own accident. 7. Whether the flange on which Plaintiff tripped was open and obvious; 8. Whether Plaintiff used reasonable care for his own safety when walking

on the roof of welding stall No.2 to look where he was going. 9. Whether Plaintiff, as foreman, was negligent for not inspecting the route

he and his crew were required to walk in order to get to their welding machine to turn it on and off and to service it.

10. Whether at the time of Plaintiff’s accident the location of the flange was

under the active control of Bisso.


20

11. Whether Bisso as the owner of the L/B SUPER CHIEF failed in its duty to provide Plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to work or warn him of a potential hazard.

12. Whether at the time of Plaintiff’s accident Bollinger had control over the

place where the flange was located. 13. Whether at the time of Plaintiff’s accident the flange was in Bollinger’s

“work area”. 14. Whether the flange was ever within Bollinger’s work area. 15. Whether Bollinger failed in any duty it owed Plaintiff and whether such

failure was a legal cause of Plaintiff’s accident. 16. Whether Bollinger created a hazardous condition when it performed its

work to strengthen the roof of stall No. 3. 17. Whether Bollinger is liable to Plaintiff. 18. Whether Bisso is liable to Plaintiff. 19. The severity of Plaintiff's injuries, if any, and whether they have resolved

since the date of his alleged accident. 20. The economic impact and/or diminution of economic earning capacity, if

any, of Plaintiff as a result of his alleged accident and injuries. 21. Whether Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence for failing to take

reasonable care for his own safety and well-being, and that Plaintiff’s neglect was the proximate legal cause of his fall.

22. The true cause, nature and extent of Plaintiff's alleged injuries or

disabilities resulting from the alleged event, if any. 23. Whether Plaintiff is capable of returning to gainful employment now or in

the future. 24. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages for past or future loss of income

and/or earning capacity. 25. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to any damages. 26. The extent to which Plaintiff’s damages, if any, should be reduced by his

own negligence.


21

27. Bisso Marine is the owner and operator of the L/B SUPER CHIEF which was built in 1999.

28. Bollinger did not work with Granger or his crew. 29. Bisso instructed Bollinger to strengthen the roof of stall No. 3. To

strengthen the roof of stall No. 3 Bollinger, using a crane, removed the roof and set it on the land near the L/B SUPER CHIEF. Bollinger put up yellow caution tape across the adjacent roof of stall No. 2 so that no one would walk in to the void while roof No. 3 was on the shore being worked on. Bollinger then welded steel tubes to the underside of the roof. Once that was complete Bollinger installed the roof on stall No. 3, removed the caution tape, and went on to perform other tasks at Bisso’s instruction on the L/B SUPER CHIEF.

30. Days after Bollinger replaced roof No. 3 Granger and two of his crew

were walking on the roof of stall No. 2 to go and check their welding machine which had stopped working. Granger tripped on a metal flange sticking up on the roof of stall No. 2.

31. The flange had been in place for a long time, and was in that location

when Bisso brought the L/B SUPER CHIEF to Bollinger’s yard. 32. Days after Bollinger replaced the roof on stall No. 3 Granger tripped on

the flange. 33. When Granger tripped Bollinger had no employees present on the roofs of

the stalls. It had completed its work on the roof No. 3 days before. 34. Bisso never instructed Bollinger to repair, modify or mark the flange on

the roof of stall No. 2. 35. The day that Granger fell was the first time that he had been on the roof of

stall No. 2. 36. At all material times Bisso had a full crew on board the L/B SUPER

CHIEF including Superintendents, foremen and crew. 37. Whether plaintiff's agreed to release, defend, protect and indemnify and

hold harmless Bollinger for all claims by plaintiff, including all claims alleged in the Complaint for Damages and Bollinger pleads the entirety of the Release and Hold Harmless Agreement as a complete bar to all claims of Plaintiff, all as is pled in Bollinger's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, Second Defense.


22

38. Whether plaintiff's employer entered into the Release and Hold Harmless Agreement with Bollinger whereby they agreed to release, defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless Bollinger for all claims by Plaintiff, including all claims alleged in the Complaint for Damages, and Bollinger herein pleads the entirety of the Release and Hold Harmless Agreement as a complete bar to all claims of Plaintiff, or , in the alternative, plaintiff's employer is liable and obligated to release, defend, protect, and hold harmless Bollinger for any injuries and/or damages of Plaintiff caused by any negligence or fault of Bollinger, all as is pled in Bollinger's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, Third Defense.


1. Whether Plaintiff had an accident as he claims.

2. Whether Bisso Marine is liable under 905(b).

3. Whether the angel iron was a hidden or latent defect.

4. Whether the alleged angle iron was open and obvious.

5. The comparative fault of Steve Granger, IV.

6. Whether the area of the PDI welding machine was within the work area of PDI.

7. The fault of PDI—did they provide a safe work area for its employees.

8. The fault of Bollinger Shipyards.

9. Plaintiff had a preexisting left ankle osteochondral defect.

10. Medical causation as to plaintiff’s alleged injuries. 11. Nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries, if any, from the subject incident. 12. Plaintiff requires no future medical attention as a result of the subject

accident. 13. Plaintiff will sustain no future economic losses of any type as a result of

the alleged injuries from this accident. 14. Nature and extent of plaintiff’s economic losses, if any, from the subject

incident. 15. Whether plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, if any.


23

16. Plaintiff was a surgical candidate before the subject accident and the

accident in no way changed his need for surgery. 17. Nature and extent of plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions and prior

complaints. 18. The extent of plaintiff’s medical specials.

9. Contested issues of law:

a.) Plaintiff:

1. Whether Bisso had a duty to Plaintiff under either Louisiana law or 33 U.S.C. § 905b.

2. Whether Bollinger had a duty to Plaintiff under Louisiana law. 3. Whether Bisso and/or Bollinger breached any such duty to Plaintiff. 4. Whether Bisso and/or Bollinger is liable to Plaintiff in damages. b.) Defendant, Bollinger:

1. Any and all issues of law implicit in the foregoing Contested Issues of

Fact. 2. Whether Bollinger breached any duty it owed Plaintiff. 3. Whether the flange was ever in Bollinger’s “work area”. 4. Even if the flange was in Bollinger’s work area when Bollinger was

working on strengthening the roof of stall No. 3, did Bollinger have any control or responsibility for the flange at the time of Plaintiff’s accident which occurred days after Bollinger had finished its work and departed the area.


See Section 8 above.

10. Exhibits:

a.) Plaintiff may introduce the following exhibits:


24

1. Personnel file of Steve Granger, IV, with Power Dynamics

2. Income Tax Returns of Steve Granger, IV

3. Deposition of Bollinger Corporate Representative, Corey Phelps, for any purpose allowed by the Rules of Court

4. Deposition of Bollinger Corporate Representative, Dustin Bagwell, for any

purpose allowed by the Rules of Court 5. Deposition of Terrell Babin for any purpose allowed by the Rules of Court

6. Deposition of Dr. Angus McBryd taken for perpetuation, and its exhibits and videotape

7. Worker's Compensation medical benefit and indemnity benefit records

8. Job evaluation report from Corecare Management

9. Incident Reports/First Injury Reports

10. Photographs of the L/B SUPER CHIEF and accident site

11. Photographs of Steve Granger, IV's Ankle

12. June 23 Job Summary Acceptance Form

13. X-rays and/or MRI Diagnostic Studies Performed Upon Steve Granger, IV 14. Medical Records of Steve Granger, IV from Dr. Eric Jude Letonoff

15. Medical bills of Steve Granger, IV from Dr. Eric Jude Letonoff

16. Medical Records of Steve Granger, IV from Dr. Angus McBryde

17. Medical bills of Steve Granger, IV from Dr. Angus McBryde

18. Medical Records of Steve Granger, IV from Costal Rehabilitation of South Mississippi

19. Medical bills of Steve Granger, IV from Costal Rehabilitation of South Mississippi 20. Medical Records of Steve Granger, IV from Garden Park Medical Center


25

21. Medical bills of Steve Granger, IV from Garden Park Medical Center 22. Medical Records of Steve Granger, IV from Grace Healthcare

23. Medical bills of Steve Granger, IV from Grace Healthcare

24. Medical Records of Steve Granger, IV from Teche Regional Medical Center 25. Medical bills of Steve Granger, IV from Teche Regional Medical Center 26. Medical Records of Steve Granger, IV from University of South Alabama Medical

Center 27. Medical bills of Steve Granger, IV from University of South Alabama Medical

Center 28. Medical Records of Steve Granger, IV from Kings Daughters Rehabilitation

Center 29. Medical bills of Steve Granger, IV from Kings Daughters Rehabilitation Center 30. Expert Report of Dr. G. Randolph Rice, and all reference materials/guidelines

referred to/or attached to the expert report of Dr. G. Randolph Rice 31. Expert Report of Robert Borison, and all reference materials/guidelines referred

to/or attached to the expert report of Robert Borison 32. Expert Report of Bobby S. Roberts, Work Recovery Center, and all reference

materials/guidelines referred to/or attached to the expert report of Bobby S. Roberts

33. Expert Report of Robert E. Borison, Total Safety Services, Inc., all reference

materials/guidelines referred to/or attached to the expert report 34. Bollinger Shipyards, LLC Answers to Interrogatories 35. Bisso Marine, LLC, Answers to Interrogatories 36. Bollinger Shipyards, LLC Responses to Requests for Production 37. Bisso Marine, LLC, Responses to Requests for Production 38. Any chart or summary showing medical care provided to Steve Granger, IV and

the nature of his injuries 39. Medical illustrations of Steve Granger, IV, injury and/or surgical procedure


26

40. Documents produced inter sese by Defendants

41. Interrogatory Answers inter sese between Defendants

Defendant objects to the following exhibits:

Defendants object to Plaintiff's exhibit numbers 8 & 31 supra

b.) Defendant, Bollinger may utilize the following exhibits:

1. Plaintiff’s deposition for any use permitted by the Rules of Court

2. Bollinger’s Job File for work done at the direction of Bisso Marine to the Bisso SUPER CHIEF

3. Bollinger Repair Division, Inspection and Test Reports

4. Bisso Marine Daily Progress Reports for the SUPER CHIEF

5. Bisso Marine Job Safety Analysis and Planning Documents, including that signed and completed by plaintiff

6. Power Dynamics Daily Work reports of Service Performed

7. Power Dynamics First Report of Injury or Illness, June 13, 2014, signed by Plaintiff

8. Transcript of Plaintiff’s recorded statement taken July 8, 2014

9. Power Dynamics Project Checklist

10. Copy of Plaintiff’s spiral notebook, drawings, diagrams, photos prepared and maintained by Plaintiff

11. U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Documentation on SUPER CHIEF

12. Plaintiff’s personnel file with Power Dynamics

13. Plaintiff’s payroll records with Power Dynamics

14. Plaintiff’s file from United States Army, his separation from the Service, including those pages Bates Stamped Granger Bollinger-002141 through 002162

15. Naval architect deck plan of SUPER CHIEF

16. Plaintiff’s Tax Returns


27

17. Social Security Administration Earning History of Plaintiff

18. American Interstate Insurance Company Policy AVWCMS221892013 19. Bisso Marine Indemnity Agreement with Power Dynamics

20. Records of Plaintiff’s arrest for sexual molestation

21. Any photograph taken by a party or on behalf of a party to this lawsuit 22. Records produced by Power Dynamics in response to subpoena issued by

Bollinger 23. Plaintiff’s job application to Power Dynamics

24. Emails between Carl Liberty and Plaintiff

25. PDI Health and Safety Manual

26. Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Plaintiff by Bollinger and his responses

27. Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Plaintiff by Bisso and his

responses 28. Records of Orange Grove Urgent Care

29. Records of Teche Regional Medical Center

30. Records of Dr. Brian Fong

31. Records of Dr. Eric Letonoff

32. Records of Garden Medical Center

33. Records of Coastal Rehabilitation of South Mississippi

34. Records of Dr. Angus McBryde

35. MRI scan films, X-Rays, radiology studies and films of Plaintiff’s ankle and foot 36. Records of Mobile Open MRI/MRI & Imaging of Alabama

37. Records of King’s Daughter’s Health

38. Report of Dr. David Aiken


28

39. Report of Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux

40. Deposition of Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux taken for perpetuation, and its exhibits and video

41. Report of Carla Seyler, vocational rehabilitation expert

42. Report of Mark Shiffer

43. Report of Bobby Roberts

44. Deposition of Corey Phelps for any purpose allowed by the Rules of Court 45. Deposition of Dustin Bagwell for any purpose allowed by the Rules of Court 46. Deposition of Terrell Babin for any purpose allowed by the Rules of Court 47. Bisso Hot Work Permit signed by Plaintiff 48. Report of Arthur Sargent, Naval Architect and Marine Engineer 49. Release and Hold Harmless Agreement signed by plaintiff, 4-28-14 50. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc. Facilities Contractor Orientation signed by Plaintiff,

4-28-14 Plaintiff objects to the following Bollinger exhibits:

Plaintiff object to Bollinger's exhibit numbers 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 47, 48, 49 & 50 supra

c.) Defendant, Bisso may utilize the following exhibits:

1. United States Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection for the DLB Super Chief

2. United States Coast Guard Port State Information Exchange for the DLB

Super Chief 3. Arthur Sargent’s expert report, attachments and exhibits 4. Bollinger Shipyard Contractor Orientation Sheet—signed by plaintiff 5. Bollinger Release and Hold Harmless—signed by plaintiff 6. Bollinger Shipyard Contractor Emergency—signed by plaintiff


29

7. Bollinger Shipyard—L/B Super Chief work summary 8. Bollinger Shipyard JSAs for L/B Super Chief 9. Bollinger Shipyard Inspection and Test Report—June 20, 2014 10. Bollinger Shipyard Surface Preparation reports 11. Bisso Marine Indemnity Agreement with PDI 12. Bisso JSA executed by Steve Granger on June 12, 2014 13. Bisso Hot Permit executed by Steve Granger on June 12, 2014 14. Bisso Marine Daily Logs for work on the L/B Super Chief 15. Plaintiff’s personnel file at Power Dynamics (PDI) 16. Power Dynamics (PDI) construction file

17. Photographs of the premises

18. Plaintiff’s daily work notes and Reports to Power Dynamics (PDI) 19. Any and all Incident Reports or First Injury Reports 20. Plaintiff’s typed statement of incident 21. Records produced by Amerisafe Insurance in response to subpoena 22. Transcribed Statement of Steve Granger IV taken July 8, 2014 23. Any and all contracts and agreements between PDI and Bisso Marine 24. Any and all IRS/SSA records of the Steve Granger, IV 25. Steve Granger’s Military Service Records 26. Steve Granger’s Military Medical Records 27. Dr. David Aiken. Jr.’s expert reports, attachments and exhibits 28. Carla Seyler’s expert report, attachments and exhibits 29. Ken Boudreaux’s video deposition, expert report, attachments and exhibits


30

30. Steve Granger’s Answers to Interrogatories produced in this matter 31. Steve Granger’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents

produced in this matter 32. Bollinger Shipyard’s Answers to Interrogatories produced in this matter 33. Bollinger Shipyard’s Responses to Request for Production produced in

this matter 34. Bollinger Shipyard construction file for the L/B Super Chief project 35. Bollinger Shipyard Inspection and Test Reports 36. Bollinger Shipyard Repair Specification Sheet 37. Any and all medical records of the plaintiff 38. Medical Records and Films from Compass Imaging 39. Medical Records and Films from Orange Grove Urgent Care 40. Medical Records and Films from Mobile Open MRI 41. Medical Records and Films from Teche Regional Medical Center 42. Arthroscopic photographs dated November 5, 2014 43. Arthroscopic photographs dated October 8, 2015 44. Any and all wage records of the plaintiff from PDI 45. Plaintiff’s separation from Service 46. Plaintiff’s tax returns and W2s 47. Report and exhibits of Mark Shiffer 48. Report of Bobby Roberts 49. Summaries or compilations of admissible evidence 50. Any documents or evidence listed by any other party


31

51. Any documents or evidence which may be discovered between now and the time of the trial

52. Any documents produced by any parties during the course of discovery 53. Any and all exhibits used for impeachment purposes 54. Deposition transcripts and their exhibits taken in this matter for purposes

allowed by the Federal Code of Civil Procedure

Plaintiff objects to the following Bisso exhibits:

Plaintiff object to Bisso exhibit numbers 5, 12, 13, 21, 25 & 26 supra

11. Deposition Testimony:

a.) Plaintiff may use deposition testimony of:

1. Dr. Angus McBryde

2. Dustin Bagwell

3. Terrell Babin

4. Corey Phelps

5. Plaintiff reserves the right to offer the deposition of any witness unavailable for trial, for impeachment purposes, or for any other reason permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Evidence.

b.) Defendant Bollinger may use the deposition testimony of:

Bollinger reserves the right to introduce any and all deposition testimony

taken or to be taken in this matter, as allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. It specifically reserves the right to use the deposition testimony of any

witness unavailable to testify live at trial or beyond the subpoena power of this

Court.

Bollinger may use the depositions and all exhibits of:

1. Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux, forensic economist;


32

2. Dr. Angus McBryde, Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon.

c.) Defendant Bisso may use the deposition testimony of:

1. Dr. Ken Boudreaux, forensic economist--video deposition.

12. Charts, Graphs, Models, or Schematic Diagrams: a.) Plaintiff:

Plaintiff may use a blackboard, schematic drawings, anatomical charts, drawings,

diagrams or models, photographs in opening statement and in closing argument, or enlargements

of documentary evidence.

b.) Defendant, Bollinger: Bollinger reserves the right to use blowups of various exhibits and/or diagrams, a

chalkboard, charts, photographs, videotapes, etc. for illustrative purposes.

c.) Defendant, Bisso: Bisso reserves the right to use blowups of any of the exhibits listed herein. 13. Witnesses: a.) Plaintiff: Will call:

a.) Steve Granger, IV, Plaintiff 4405 Coopers Bottom Road Lot #56 Milton, Kentucky 40045 Will testify as to background and nature of his work with Power Dynamics, the manner in which the accident occurred, consequences of the accident, injuries suffered, medical care provided, other benefits provided through JanTran, Inc. and the economic consequences of the accident. b.) G. Randolph Rice, Ph. D. 7048 Moniteau Court Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809 Will testify as to the economic losses of Mr. Granger.


33

c.) Mr. Robert Borison Total Safety Service, Inc. 215 E. Second Street, Unit 1 Pass Christian, Mississippi 39571

Will testify as to liability. d.) Bobby S. Roberts Work Recovery Center 2905 Kingman Street Floor 2 Metairie, Louisiana 70006

Will testify as to the vocational rehabilitation status of Plaintiff, including limitations on his future employability.

e.) Dr. Angus McBryde USA Orthopaedic Surgery 3421 Medical Park Drive Building 2 Mobile, AL 36693

Will testify as to the plaintiff’s injury and treatment

f.) Terrell Babin Walnut Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 Will testify as to facts and circumstances of plaintiff’s accident. g.) Corey Phelps 735 DeGenelle Road Amelia, Louisiana Will testify as to facts and circumstances of plaintiff’s accident. h.) Dustin Bagwell 1122 Hickory Street Morgan City, Louisiana a 70380 Will testify as to facts and circumstances of plaintiff’s accident. i.) Any necessary impeachment and rebuttal witnesses; and

j.) Any witness listed or called by any other party.


34

k.) Any witness listed by defendant b.) Defendant, Bollinger: Bollinger will call the following witnesses:

1. Plaintiff on cross examination.

Bollinger may call the following witnesses:

1. Corey Phelps, Bollinger Operations Manager, Amelia, La. Facility;

2. Justin Bagwell, Bollinger project manager for the work performed on the L/B SUPER CHIEF;

3. Terrell Babin, Bisso Marine Vice-President, floating assets;

4. Mark Shiffer, marine surveyor, expert;

5. Dr. Kenneth Boudreaux, forensic economist;

6. Carla Seyler, vocational rehabilitation consultant;

7. Dr. David Aiken, orthopedic surgeon;

8. Dr. Angus McBryde, orthopedic surgeon;

9. Dr. Eric Letonoff, orthopedic surgeon;

10. Arthur Sargent, Naval Architect and Marine Engineer

11. Bobby Roberts, vocational rehabilitation consultant;

12. Any witness called or listed by any other party;

13. Any rebuttal witness.

c.) Defendant, Bisso: Bisso may call the following witnesses:

1. Terrell Daniel Babin, Corporate Representative for Bisso Marine, LLC—testify as to the ownership and renovations being performed on the LB Super Chief;


35

2. Doug Breaux, Project Manager for Bisso Marine, LLC testify as to the renovations being performed on the LB Super Chief and obligations of the contractors on the L/B Super Chief;

3. Chris Gray, Safety Technician for Bisso Marine, LLC testify as to the

renovations being performed on the LB Super Chief and obligations of the contractors on the L/B Super Chief;

4. Corporate Representative(s) for Power Dynamics, LLC;

5. Michael Carver, employee of Power Dynamics, LLC in regards to scope of work being performed on the L/B Super Chief as well as Mr. Granger’s scope as supervisor.;

6. Jessie Crawford, employee of Power Dynamics, LLC in regards to scope

of work being performed on the L/B Super Chief as well as Mr. Granger’s scope as supervisor.;

7. Dustin Bagwell, employee of Bollinger Shipyards, LLC; 8. Corey Phelps, employee of Bollinger Shipyards, LLC; 9. Dr. David Aiken, Jr., Orthopedic Medical Examination expert; 10. Carla Seyler, Vocational Rehabilitation; 11. Arthur Sargent, Marine Engineer expert; 12. Kenneth Boudreaux, Economic expert; 13. Christopher Granger, facts in regards to plaintiff’s preexisting left ankle

complaints and arrest for Sexual Battery; 14. Lynn Granger, facts in regards to plaintiff’s preexisting left ankle

complaints and arrest for Sexual Battery; 15. Any individuals listed by any other parties in their Witness lists; 16. Any individual need to authenticate or certify any of the exhibits listed in

the Exhibit List; 17. Any and all witnesses called for impeachment purposes;

Witness lists have been filed by both parties in accordance with prior Court order. No

other witnesses shall be allowed unless agreeable to all parties and their addition does not affect


36

the trial date. This restriction will not apply to rebuttal witnesses or documents when their

necessity cannot be reasonably anticipated. With respect to expert reports, the parties have

exchanged expert reports in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order.

14. This case will be tried by jury. Proposed jury instructions, special jury interrogatories, trial memoranda and any special

questions that the Court is asked to put to prospective jurors on voir dire shall be delivered to the

Court and opposing counsel no later than five working days prior to the trial date, unless specific

leave to the contrary is granted by the Court. Each party shall file with the Court a separate

memorandum on contentions of fact and law at least two (2) days prior to trial.

15. The issue of liability will not be tried separately from that of quantum. 16. A Final Settlement Conference is scheduled with the Magistrate on September 13, 2016

at 2:30 PM, negotiations are ongoing.

17. A realistic estimate of the number of trial days is three (3) days. The trial of this case is

set to commence on September 26-28, 2014.

18. This pre-trial order has been formulated after conference, at which counsel for respective

parties have appeared in person. Reasonable opportunity has been afforded counsel for

corrections or additions prior to signing. Hereafter, this order will control the course of the trial,

and may not be amended except by the consent of the parties and the Court, or by order of the

Court to prevent manifestation of injustice.

19. The possibility of settlement of this case will be considered at a final Settlement

Conference with Magistrate Daniel Knowles, on September 13, 2016, negotiations are

continuing.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 8th day of September, 2016.


37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Respectfully submitted, /s/ Richard M. Martin, Jr. Frank E. Lamothe III, T.A. (#07945) Richard M. Martin, Jr. (#08998) LAMOTHE LAW FIRM, LLC 400 Poydras Street, Suite 1760 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: 504-704-1414 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff, Steve Granger, IV /s/ Brant Cacamo Sidney Angelle (#1002) Brant Cacamo (#26227) LOBMAN, CARNAHAN, BATT, ANGELLE & NADER 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2300 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: 504-586-9292 [email protected] Attorneys for Bisso Marine /s/ Wilton E. Bland, III Wilton E. Bland, III (#3123) Juan C. Obregon (#35273) Trevor Cutaiar (#33082) MOULEDOUX, BLAND, LEGRAND & BRACKETT. LLC 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 Telephone: 504-595-3000 Facsimile: 504-522-2121


38

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Bollinger Shipyards, LLC
