A panel of judges from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss a claim brought by a former Auburn University football player, who sued a former trainer at the school and others for allegedly mismanaging his rehabilitation from back surgery, causing him to suffer a career-ending back injury.
In so ruling, the court found that plaintiff Chaz Ramsey failed to provide enough evidence that the defendant had destroyed a rehabilitation plan, which might have shown that the defendant went beyond the rehabilitation exercises prescribed by Ramsey’s surgeon.
The plaintiff began his career at Auburn in 2007. He promptly earned a starting spot on the offensive line. By season’s end, he was named to the Southeastern Conference All-Freshman Team.
Seemingly on course for a successful career at Auburn, Ramsey injured his back in December of that same year. After receiving treatment, including minor surgery, in the spring of 2008, Ramsey was given clearance by his surgeon, Dr. Stanley Faulkner, to resume “a gradual supervised increase in activities that was to consist of some running and exercise without any weight room activities.”
The plaintiff alleged that multiple defendants, including trainer Arnold Gamber and strength and conditioning coach Kevin Yoxall, disregarded those instructions and on June 2, 2008 he injured his back again. Further, he claimed that when the defendants were informed that he could not resume activities, they removed him from the offensive line, revoked his meal ticket, and cleaned out his locker.
Further, they allegedly held Ramsey “up for ridicule and embarrassment before his teammates and coaching staff; questioned his injury and characterized him as a malingerer who was not really injured.”
In early 2009, Ramsey had surgery that allegedly ended his “participation in a sport where he held great promise for a professional career.”
In a six-count complaint, the plaintiff alleged negligence, wantonness, interference with a physician/patient relationship, outrageous conduct, civil conspiracy, and violation of civil rights.
The district court dismissed Ramsey’s claim, sparking the appeal.
The appeals court zeroed in on the “missing rehabilitation plan,” and Ramsey’s contention that it “entitles him to an adverse interference of Gamber’s negligence and at least creates a material issue of fact for a jury because Gamber must have destroyed the plan in anticipation of litigation.
“However, Ramsey has produced no evidence that anyone destroyed the written plan, let alone that Gamber destroyed the plan in bad faith.”
Ramsey v. Gamber: 11th Cir.; D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-00919-MHT-TFM; 3/15/12
