USCA4 Appeal: 23-1376 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1376

SAMANTHA ROOP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NICHOLAS JAMES DESOUSA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00675-DJN)

Submitted: September 9, 2024 Decided: October 17, 2024

Before WILKINSON, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Samantha B. Cohn, GEOFF MCDONALD & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; John S. Koehler, THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES STEELE PLLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Carter T. Keeney, CARTER & SHANDS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1376 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

After being injured in a motor vehicle accident in July 2019, Samantha Roop

brought this negligence action against Nicholas James Desousa, who conceded that he was

responsible for the collision. Though Roop recovered for her soft tissue injuries, the district

court granted Desousa’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law on

Roop’s claim that the accident caused her to suffer internal pelvic injuries. Roop appeals

that decision, and we affirm.

“We review the grant of a Rule 50(a) motion de novo, viewing the facts and drawing

all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party.” Mathis v. Terra

Renewal Servs., Inc.,

(4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). “The operative

question is whether the evidence compels but one reasonable conclusion as to the proper

judgment.”

(quotation marks removed). “Though courts must not weigh evidence,

determine witness credibility, or substitute judgment of the facts for that of the jury, the

nonmoving party must present more than a scintilla of evidence to support its claim.”

(quotation marks removed).

In 2011, Roop was diagnosed with a cystocele, a type of pelvic prolapse. Because

the cystocele was only first degree, Roop’s urogynecologist, Dr. Nathan Guerette, did not

consider it to be clinically significant. But by October 2019—three months after the

accident—Roop’s pelvic health had worsened, as Dr. Guerette diagnosed her with a

second- to third-degree cystocele, as well as two other pelvic prolapses. According to

Roop, these conditions were proximately caused by the motor vehicle accident.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1376 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/17/2024 Pg: 3 of 5

In granting Desousa’s Rule 50(a) motion, the district court concluded that Roop had

not presented sufficient evidence as to why the prolapses occurred. The court emphasized

that the cystocele was first diagnosed in 2011 and, in Dr. Guerette’s words, “progressed”

to a more severe condition in 2019. (J.A. 1 520). Without evidence showing that Roop’s

pelvic problems were not merely the result of muscle deterioration, the court found that

Roop’s claim failed as a matter of law.

In addition, the district court drew a distinction between simple and complex

causation, explaining that there was “an insufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury

to find for Plaintiff . . . as the causation issue relating to Plaintiff’s pelvic prolapse was too

complex for lay testimony only.” (J.A. 812). In a subsequent order denying Roop’s Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(a), (e), motion, the court expressly held that, under the substantive law of

Virginia—which governs here—expert testimony is required to establish complex

causation. 2

On appeal, Roop disputes the district court’s determination that expert testimony

was necessary to prevail on her claim. However, we need not decide whether the absence

of expert testimony was, on its own, fatal to Roop’s claim. Even assuming that lay

testimony could have sufficed—that is, that the district court erred in imposing an expert

1 “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties in this appeal. 2 Roop does not challenge the district court’s Rule 59 order.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1376 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/17/2024 Pg: 4 of 5

testimony requirement—we nevertheless agree with the court’s conclusion that the lay

testimony that Roop adduced fell short of creating an issue for the jury. 3

“[E]vidence tending to show causal connection must be sufficient to take the

question out of the realm of mere conjecture, or speculation, and into the realm of

legitimate inference, before a question of fact for submission to the jury has been made

out.” Beale v. Jones,

(Va. 1970). At trial, Roop testified that she

experienced pelvic pain and related symptoms following the accident, though she could

not remember when exactly these symptoms arose. And Dr. Guerette testified that Roop’s

pelvic problems were more significant in 2019, though he had not seen her since 2013. As

the district court recognized, the mere fact that Roop’s pelvic health worsened after the

accident was not enough to infer a causal relationship. “Proof of possibility of causal

connection is not sufficient,” particularly where the plaintiff’s explanation is “only one of

several ways” in which an injury could have occurred. Atrium Unit Owners Ass’n v. King,

(Va. 2003) (quotation marks removed). Thus, based on the minimal

causation evidence presented by Roop, the jury could have only speculated as to the cause

of her pelvic injuries. For this reason, the district court properly granted judgment to

Desousa on this claim.

3 Consequently, we do not consider Roop’s related claim that the district court erred by looking to cases outside of Virginia to bolster its conclusion that expert testimony was required.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1376 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/17/2024 Pg: 5 of 5

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5