Le v. United States

1

MICHAEL LE and DUNG LE, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00147-O

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

July 24, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

REED O'CONNOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This personal injury lawsuit is the result of a car accident involving a United States Postal Service truck and a vehicle driven by Plaintiff Michael Le, who is now a quadriplegic. Mr. Le and his wife, Dung Le (“Plaintiffs”), sued the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680, for damages they've suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the tragic incident that occurred in May of 2018. In response, the United States claims that Mr. Le and his spinal surgeon, Dr. Matthew Berchuck, were the negligent actors in this case. During the week of April 24, 2023, the Court conducted a four-day bench trial regarding the claims and defenses made by the parties in this matter that included the testimony of Mr. Le, who was transported to the Courthouse by ambulance.^[1] While the parties contest most of the underlying facts and import of the evidence presented in this case, the dispute ultimately turns on two essential questions: (1) who is at fault for causing Mr. Le's quadriplegia and, if the United States is to blame, (2) how much are the Les to be compensated for the harm they've endured?

The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are based upon the evidence presented at trial, including the Court's observation of the witnesses and their relative credibility; the parties' arguments and post-trial supplemental briefing; and applicable authorities. Having considered the entire record, the Court rules against the United States and in favor of Plaintiffs on their claim of negligence under the FTCA and concludes that the United States is jointly and severally liable for all of Plaintiffs' recoverable damages.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT^[2]

On May 4, 2018, Plaintiff Michael Le was a 47-year-old man with a pre-existing condition of ankylosing spondylitis, a spinal disease that can lead to the spine becoming rigidly fused together over time, that makes the spine more susceptible to fractures at low levels of force, and can result in highly unstable fractures when they do occur. At advanced stages this spinal fusion may lead to a kyphotic deformity such that the patient has a “pitched forward” or bent over posture, with their chin near their chest. At the time of the accident, Mr. Le was suffering from advanced untreated ankylosing spondylitis, which was evident from his hunched-forward posture that restricted his upward gaze and prevented him from standing up straight. Despite the severity of his condition, Mr. Le was employed and engaged in the usual activities of daily living such as cleaning, lawn maintenance, driving, and grocery shopping. Mr. Le also engaged in regular physical exercise, such as throwing the baseball with his son and running a mile on the track several times a week. Nor did his condition prevent him from engaging in common family activities like eating out at restaurants going out in the community with his family, vacationing traveling to his son's baseball tournaments, and visiting family abroad.

a. The Accident

On the rainy afternoon of May 4, 2018, Mr. Le left his home located at 2752 Excalibur Drive in Grand Prairie, Texas to pick up his son from school, as he customarily did. He got into his red Toyota that was parked in his driveway facing his house, with Excalibur Drive to the rear. Though there is conflicting evidence on this point, Mr. Le testified that when he got into his car he adjusted his mirrors and put on his seatbelt, as he does every time.^[3] There is also a dispute about whether he was wearing shoes at the time of the accident.^[4] After backing to the edge of his driveway and before entering the street, Mr. Le stopped and looked in both directions for oncoming traffic. Seeing no cars coming from either direction, Mr. Le continued backing out of his driveway while turning the steering wheel so he could head to his left down the street, in the opposite direction of a community mailbox located a short distance down the street to his right. After his vehicle's front bumper cleared the sidewalk curb, Mr. Le came to a complete stop, shifted from reverse into drive, and began pressing on the accelerator pedal.^[5]

At the same time, a USPS mail truck was stopped at the community mailbox approximately thirty feet away on the far side of the street, facing the opposite direction.^[6] The driver, USPS employee Ms. Jill Williams, was in the driver's seat on the right-hand side of the vehicle. Ms. Williams was engaged in her mail delivery duties and was dropping off a package at the community mailbox. However, because the package would not fit in the mailbox, Ms. Williams needed to deliver it to the addressee's home a few houses behind her. But it was raining that afternoon. So rather than get out of the vehicle and deliver the package on foot or drive the long way around the block, Ms. Williams decided to drive the mail truck in reverse against the flow of traffic to deliver the package at the address a few houses to behind her.^[7]

Though Ms. Williams says that she checked her mirrors before and while driving in reverse, the evidence indicates it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to see behind the mail truck given the vehicle's substantial blinds spots, regardless of one's use of the mirrors. Indeed, a postal driver with nearly thirty years of experience indicated that delivery drivers simply “can't see behind the mail truck” when driving in reverse, even if expertly utilizing the mirrors.^[8] Likely for this reason, among others, all USPS delivery drivers are trained never to drive in reverse unless absolutely necessary.^[9] The vehicles are also equipped with prominent signage reminding drivers not to back up. While reversing down the street at a slow rate of speed, Ms. Williams' mail truck struck the right rear quarter panel of Mr. Le's Toyota.

After this first impact, Mr. Le accelerated his vehicle across his front yard, through his neighbor's privacy fence, and into the corner of his neighbor's house. The second impact slammed his vehicle to a halt and deployed the driver's side airbag. Though this second impact caused significant damage to the front of his Toyota, Mr. Le exited the vehicle, most concerned that he had damaged his neighbor's home. Having felt the first impact and overheard the second, Ms. Williams stopped her mail truck and got out to see if Mr. Le was alright. Minutes later, Grand Prairie Police and EMTs responded to the scene. Mr. Le agreed to undergo an initial medical examination in the ambulance but, not realizing the severity of his injury, ultimately refused transport to the hospital. At that point, his neck was hurting but he could still walk with some assistance. While police officers conducted an investigation and prepared an accident report, Mr. Le leaned against a car in his driveway, standing in a manner to keep weight off of his right leg. Eventually, however, Mr. Le lost the capacity to support his body weight and slumped to the ground. Because he had collapsed and was unable to stand, several individuals placed Mr. Le in a family car and his son drove him to a nearby hospital.

b. The Spinal Fracture

The parties vehemently contest the cause of this series of events. Neither party contests that, at some point during the accident, Mr. Le obtained a severe “chalk-stick” fracture in his C6 vertebra. A chalk-stick fracture, common in ankylosing spondylitis patients, is the colloquial name for a complete break or through-and-through fracture of the vertebra. What the parties do contest is when in the sequence of events that fracture occurred. Plaintiffs argue the first impact caused the fracture, which in turn caused an immediate but transient loss of neurological function in some of Mr. Le's extremities because of an injury to his spinal cord. This neurological injury, Plaintiffs allege, resulted in Mr. Le's inability to remove his foot from the already-depressed accelerator pedal, causing his car to accelerate across his yard, through a fence, and into his neighbor's house. By contrast, the Government argues that no fracture and spinal cord injury occurred during the first impact and that Mr. Le, either accidentally or voluntarily, pressed the accelerator pedal in response to the first collision and-for approximately six seconds and over more than ninety feet-drove his vehicle through the fence and into his neighbor's house at 20 miles per hour.

The Government contends it is only logical that the fracture occurred during the second, much more forceful impact. Because had Mr. Le's vertebra fractured during the first impact, the second high-velocity impact would have been a devastating event, rendering him an immediate quadriplegic. In the Government's view, because Mr. Le got out of the car and walked around for some time after the accident, the fracture could not have occurred during the first minor collision.

The Court finds that the weight of evidence supports Plaintiffs' theory of events. First, the parties' experts all agree that ankylosing spondylitis patients can acquire severe chalk-stick fractures from very minor impacts. Indeed, many ankylosing spondylitis patients experience this kind of fracture by simply slipping and falling. For this reason, the fact that the first impact between Ms. Williams' mail truck and Mr. Le's car was relatively low force compared to Mr. Le's collision with his neighbor's house is of little import given Mr. Le's advanced disease and high degree of susceptibility to low-impact fractures. As Plaintiffs' spinal...