The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court’s decision not to disturb a jury’s verdict, which favored a college football player in his negligence lawsuit against an orthopedic and physical training clinic.
In 2000, Alvin Howard was a student at Greenville College in Greenville, Illinois, and a talented running back on the Greenville football team. On November 21, 2000, following an ankle injury, Howard visited Missouri Bone and Joint Center, Inc., an orthopedic and physical training clinic in St. Louis, Missouri. Howard was interested in working out with an athletic trainer in order to improve his football skills. Kevin Templin, a certified athletic trainer employed by MBJC, provided Howard with an initial evaluation. This initial evaluation consisted of an interview, measurements, and some performance testing. Templin asked Howard to estimate the maximum amount of weight Howard could lift while performing certain exercises, including bench press and squat lifts. Importantly, however, Howard did not do any actual squat lifts on November 21, although this was part of a standard MBJC evaluation. Templin testified that this was because he simply ran out of time. Additionally, Templin did not ask Howard when he had last exercised. In reality, Howard had not done any lower-body workouts in the previous 12 weeks, due to his ankle injury.
On January 8, 2001, Howard returned to MBJC to train under Templin’s supervision. Templin employed a “pyramiding” technique with Howard, in which Howard would lift progressively more weight, but with fewer repetitions per set. Howard performed a number of exercises that day, including four sets of squat lifts, without incident. Howard returned on January 10 for another workout with Templin. In the middle of a ten-repetition set of squats, Howard felt a pop and a sharp pain in his lower back. Howard immediately informed Templin of this pain, who allegedly responded “no pain, no gain” and that Howard should “push through it.” Howard was able to finish the set, during which his pain increased significantly. Howard testified that his “pain went from … a 6 when it first happened to a 10 instantly.”
This pain ranged from Howard’s lower back, through his left buttocks and down through his left leg. Following Howard’s completion of the set of squat lifts, and at Templin’s instruction, Howard did some stretching and rode a stationary bike, neither of which relieved his pain.
After seeking treatment at various hospitals, Howard was eventually referred to neurosurgeon Dr. Gregory J. Bailey. Dr. Bailey examined Howard on March 5, 2001, and diagnosed him with a herniated disc in his back. Dr. Bailey surgically repaired Howard’s herniated disc on March 20, 2001.
In August 2005, Howard filed this action against MBJC, alleging that MBJC was negligent in three respects: (1) by failing to conduct a proper evaluation of Howard before designing a workout program; (2) by instructing Howard to continue to work out after being advised of his back pain during the workout; and (3) by failing to discontinue Howard’s workout after being advised of his back pain. At trial, Howard testified about his back injury and how it has affected his life and his aspirations to play professional football. Templin testified about his recollection of how Howard’s injury happened and about his training techniques. Templin admitted that he did not note when Howard had last worked out, and admitted that this is important information to consider when designing a workout.
At trial, the jury was instructed to rule for Howard if they found that (1) MBJC committed any one of the three negligent acts alleged, and (2) this negligence injured Howard. The jury returned a verdict for Howard in the amount of $175,000. Shortly thereafter, MBJC filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial, which was denied. MBJC appealed.
On appeal, MBJC argued that Howard failed to present evidence that two of MBJC’s allegedly negligent acts — instructing Howard to continue working out after he told Templin about his back pain, and failing to stop the workout after Howard told Templin about his back pain — were causally related to Howard’s injury. MBJC contends that the evidence presented at trial only established that Howard suffered a herniated disc during his workout, not that he was injured by continuing to work out.
Under Missouri law, a plaintiff must prove three principal elements to establish a claim for negligence: “(1) the existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) a failure of the defendant to perform that duty, and (3) an injury proximately caused by the defendant’s failure.” Blevens v. Holcomb, 469 F.3d 692, 694 (8th Cir. 2006).
The panel of judges found “sufficient evidence on causation for the issue to go to the jury. Howard testified that he felt a pop or pull in his back while lifting, and that this pain increased significantly between when he felt this pop or pull and when he finished the set of squat lifts. Dr. Bailey testified at his deposition about Howard’s symptoms, causally linking Howard’s injury to his workout on January 10. Hospital records from January 15, 2001, indicate that Howard’s pain began during his workout, but that the tingling and numbing sensation in his leg and foot–symptoms which are consistent with a herniated disc–did not begin until after he finished the workout. Taken together, this evidence is sufficient to bring the causal connection between MBJC’s negligence and Howard’s injury beyond ‘the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.’ Cowan, 740 S.W.2d at 304.
“As such, the question of causation was properly presented to the jury and, although the evidence may be susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, see Keenan, 13 F.3d at 1269, the district court did not err in denying MBJC’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on that issue. Additionally, because we see no miscarriage of justice in the verdict, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying MBJC’s motion for a new trial on the causation issue.
“MBJC next argues that Howard failed to meet his evidentiary burden as to MBJC’s third allegedly negligent act–failing to conduct a proper evaluation of Howard. First, MBJC contends that Howard failed to present evidence that Templin violated the standard of care for certified athletic trainers when he evaluated Howard on November 21, specifically by failing to test Howard’s ability to do squat lifts and failing to ask Howard when he had last worked out.
At trial, MBJC’s own expert “admitted that some of Templin’s actions violated the standard of care.
“Additionally, Templin testified that he did not ask Howard when he had last lifted weights, and that this would have been important to know in order to ease Howard into a workout schedule and develop a proper workout plan.
“Second, MBJC argues that, even if Templin did breach the standard of care, Howard presented no evidence that this breach was causally connected to his injury. … We disagree. While, of course, no one can say for certain that Howard would not have been injured had he been properly evaluated, “absolute certainty is not required in proving a causal connection between a negligent defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s injury,” Williams, 114 S.W.3d at 359. Here, Howard presented evidence that ‘leads to the logical conclusion that if certain things had been properly done, certain results would not have occurred, and such results did occur,’ which is sufficient to submit causation to the jury.”
Alvin Howard v. Missouri Bone and Joint Center, Inc.; 8th Cir.; No. 09-2914, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16699; 4/12/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Lawrence D. Green, William J. Knapp, KNAPP & OHL, Edwardsville, IL. (for defendant) Brent Winfield Baldwin, BAKER & STERCHI, St. Louis, MO.
