## Facts

- Richard D. Rock worked offshore as a steward/cook for Offshore Food Service, Inc., providing catering services on Gulf of Mexico facilities.
- Rock alleged that on July 14, 1987, while assigned to Huffco Fixed Platform 206A, his foot fell through a rusted step outside his quarters, causing an ankle sprain.
- There were no eyewitnesses to the Huffco platform incident; Rock reported it to the platform supervisor, who offered medical care that Rock declined.
- Rock later worked on a rig owned by Dual Drilling Company and alleged he reinjured the same ankle by slipping on grease on the rig floor.
- There were no eyewitnesses to the Dual rig incident.
- Rock sought medical treatment from Dr. Delmar Walker, who recorded Rock’s history, and Rock was referred to Dr. Fritz J. Rau, who also recorded Rock’s account of the injury.
- Rock died after the lawsuit began; his widow and children were substituted as plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs sued Huffco and Dual for negligence in federal district court; the district court excluded Rock’s statements to his physicians as hearsay and granted summary judgment for defendants for lack of admissible evidence of the accidents.

## Issues

1. Whether Rock’s statements to treating physicians describing the specific mechanics of the alleged accidents were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) as statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment.
2. Whether, after excluding those statements, plaintiffs produced sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on essential elements of their negligence claims.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of Rock’s accident-mechanics statements to his physicians as inadmissible hearsay.
- The court held Rule 803(4) did not cover the detailed causal narratives because the physicians testified the specific mechanics were not needed to diagnose or treat the ankle injury.
- The court affirmed summary judgment because, without the excluded statements, plaintiffs lacked admissible evidence that the alleged accidents occurred on defendants’ facilities or that defendants’ conduct caused the injury.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 803(4) admits statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment only to the extent the information is reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
- A patient’s detailed account of how an accident happened is not automatically admissible under Rule 803(4); pertinence is evaluated in context, including medical testimony about what information was needed for treatment.
- On summary judgment, the nonmovant must present admissible evidence sufficient to establish a genuine dispute on each essential element; hearsay that does not fall within an exception cannot defeat summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that Rock’s detailed descriptions of the alleged platform and rig accidents to his treating physicians were not reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment and were therefore inadmissible under Rule 803(4). With no other competent evidence establishing the occurrence and circumstances of the alleged accidents, summary judgment for Huffco and Dual was proper.


Rock v. Huffco Gas & Oil Co., 922 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1991)