January 11, 2013
Adae v. State, 2013 Ohio 23
(OH App. 2013). This decision affirmed the trial court ruling of the
Court of Claims. The third assignment of error that was rejected was a
challenge to the methods used by Dr. David Boyd, plaintiff’s economic
expert, to value the earning capacity of Cynthia Adae, who had worked
on her family farm from 1978 until her injuries. After her injury, she
resumed limited work in a roadside farm market, but at reduced capacity
compared with before her injuries. She had never been paid a wage or
salary and the defense argued that the loss should have been measured
in terms of reduced farm income. Dr. Boyd calculated Adae’s reduced
earning capacity as worth $10.43 per hour as of 2007. He assumed that
she had worked ten hours per day, five days per week, 50 weeks per year
before her injury, but had been limited to 4.5 hours per day, five days
per week, 50 weeks per year after her injury. On this basis, Dr. Boyd
testified to a present valued loss of $284,459.73, the amount awarded
by the trial court.
January 14, 2013
Chustz v. J.B. Hunt Transport,
659 So. 2d 784 (LA App. 1995). This very short memorandum vacated a
trial court’s decision to allow the hedonic damage testimony of Dr.
Stan Smith and granted a motion to exclude Smith’s testimony.
Hendricksen v. State of Montana,
2004
MT
20;
84 P.3d 38 (MT 2004). This decision recognized “loss of
ability to pursue an established course of life” and “emotional
distress” as different categories for which an injured plaintiff can
seek damages, pointing out that whether the damages overlap is a
question of proof. An economic expert was not involved in this
decision. The court described damages for “loss of ability to pursue an
established course of life” as follows:
Damages for loss of ability to pursue
an established course of life compensate for impairment of the ability
to pursue one’s chosen pursuits in life, calculated separately from the
loss of earning capacity. . . A claim for the loss of ability to pursue
an established course of life need not be premised on a physical
limitation. A plaintiff is entitled to recover, in the case of
permanent injuries, a reasonable compensation for the destruction of
his capacity to pursue an established course of life.
February 17, 2013
Baker v. Promise Regional Medical
Center, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20762 (D. KS 2013). This
decision affirmed awards of $500,000 to the widow and $300,000 to the
adult daughter of a decedent plus medical and funeral costs in a
wrongful death action, relying on Wentling v. Medical Anethesia
Services, 237 Kan. 503 (1985) and several other Kansas decisions. The
term “loss of a complete family” was recognized as a component of
economic damages. The unique component of this ruling appeared to be
that an adult child can be awarded damages for “loss of a complete
family.” An economist was not involved as an expert in this case.
.
April 20, 2013
Allen v. Bank of America, 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37815 (D. Md. 2013). This case had to do with alleged
bank violations of provisions of state and federal law in the provision
of mortgage servicing and mortgage payment services to the Allens.
Plaintiffs offered Stan Smith as an economic expert to testify about
hedonic damages and loss of credit expectancy by the Allens. Judge
Catherine Black granted a defense motion to exclude Smith’s testimony
on hedonic damages, but reserved judgment regarding his credit
expectancy calculations. She said:
BANA has moved to exclude all of the
testimony of the Allens' designated damages expert, Stan V. Smith,
asserting that he is unqualified to offer his proposed expert opinions
and that the opinions themselves are irrelevant and unreliable. The
Allens seek to offer his testimony on two types of damages they
allegedly suffered because of BANA's actions: loss of credit expectancy
and "hedonic damages" (also known as "loss of enjoyment of life"). The
Allens, in turn, have moved to exclude the expert BANA seeks to offer
to rebut Smith's testimony. For the reasons set forth below, Smith's
testimony on "hedonic damages" will be excluded (as will any testimony
by BANA's expert rebutting as much), but the parties' motions will
otherwise be denied without prejudice as the relevance and reliability
of their expert opinions on the Allens' credit expectancy is an issue
for trial.
BANA's argument seeking to exclude Smith's testimony on "hedonic
damages" largely focuses on Smith's qualifications and the
reliability of his opinions on this issue. Setting aside the question
of Smith's credentials and methods, which raise significant doubts
about his proposed expert opinions, the court finds that any testimony
on so-called "loss of enjoyment of life" or "hedonic damages" would not
"help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact
in issue" as required by Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). See, e.g., Mercado v.
Ahmed, 974 F.2d 863, 870-71 (7th Cir. 1992). While the Allens are
correct that they may seek "noneconomic damages" for emotional injuries
they suffered because of BANA's actions, (citations deleted) a jury is
perfectly capable of determining such damages without any expert
testimony (citations deleted). The court is not convinced that an
expert whose opinion is based almost entirely on asking laypersons how
a particular event has affected their enjoyment of life would provide
any assistance to the jury in making that determination for themselves.
Accordingly, BANA's motion to exclude testimony on this topic will be
granted.
Luttrell v. Island Pacific
Supermarkets, Inc., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 270 (Cal. App. 2013).
This decision involved both a failure of the plaintiff to mitigate his
medical damages (by not treating his ulcer) and an application of
Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541,
holding that a plaintiff can only recover for amounts actually paid to
medical care providers and not for amounts originally billed. The Court
held that Luttrell could recover 50% of amounts actually paid to
medical care providers for his past medical expenses. The 50% reduction
was based on his failure to mitigate his damages by seeing proper
treatment for his medical condition. Suggested by Dave Jones.
April 22, 2013
Sasnett v. Jons, 2013 Mo. App.
LEXIS 413 (MO App. 2013). It was noted without objection that Dr. John
Ward had provided deposition testimony “regarding the loss to the
family resulting from the loss of Sasnett’s income and benefits,
household services, and the leisure time shared with his family” in a
total amount of $1,975,000. No objection was stated in the decision to
Dr. Ward’s calculation of the dollar value of leisure hours with family
as time spent providing family services.
Brereton v. United States, 973
F. Supp. 752 (E.D. MI 1997). Judge Marc Goldman held that hedonic
damages for a decedent under the Michigan Wrongful Death Act were only
allowed from the moment of injury to the moment of death. He also
held that hedonic damages testimony of Stan V. Smith was inadmissible
to measure the loss of society and companionship of survivors with the
decedent.
Under Michigan law, loss of society and
companionship caused by wrongful death compensates survivors "for the
destruction of family relationships that result[] when one family
member dies." Mr. Smith's testimony is irrelevant and unhelpful in
making this assessment. The intrinsic value of the decedent's life is
an unfit measure of the value of his relationship with the surviving
plaintiffs; it is like comparing apples to oranges. To make that
valuation the factfinder will need to consider the characteristics of
the relationship, not the value society might place on the safety and
health of a statistically average individual. Therefore, Mr. Smith's
testimony is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403 as irrelevant.
Even if the proposed expert testimony was not patently irrelevant, this
Court would recommend exclusion of such evidence as unreliable and
irrelevant under the Daubert analysis.
Sargon Enterprises v. University of
Southern California, 55 Cal. 4th 747 (CA 2012). This decision
has been interpreted as meaning that California has come much closer to
having adopted the federal standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
(1993)
509
U.S.
579. In Sargon, the California Supreme Court
reinstated a trial court decision to exclude the testimony of James
Skorheim, who projected that a small start-up company would have become
a giant in the dental implant industry for purposes of projecting
damages. The trial court had excluded Skorheim’s lost profits testimony
as speculative. A Court of Appeals decision had held that Skorheim
should have been permitted to testify. The California Supreme Court
explained the trial court decision in some detail and reinstated the
trial court decision, saying:
The trial court's preliminary
determination whether the expert opinion is founded on sound logic is
not a decision on its persuasiveness. The court must not weigh an
opinion's probative value or substitute its own opinion for the
expert's opinion. Rather, the court must simply determine whether the
matter relied on can provide a reasonable basis for the opinion or
whether that opinion is based on a leap of logic or conjecture. The
court does not resolve scientific controversies. Rather, it
conducts a "circumscribed inquiry" to "determine whether, as a matter
of logic, the studies and other information cited by experts adequately
support the conclusion that the expert's general theory or technique is
valid." (Imwinkelried & Faigman, supra, 42 Loyola L.A. L.Rev. at p.
449.) The goal of trial court gatekeeping is simply to exclude "clearly
invalid and unreliable" expert opinion. (Black et al., Science and the
Law in the Wake of Daubert: A New Search for Scientific Knowledge
(1994) 72 Tex. L.Rev. 715, 788.) In short, the gatekeeper's role "is to
make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional
studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level
of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in
the relevant field." (Kumho Tire Co.
v. Carmichael, supra, 526 U.S. at p. 152.)
May 1, 2013
Laney v. Vance, 2013 Miss.
LEXIS 171 (MS 2013). The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the
trial court decision “because the trial judge committed reversible
error in instructing a jury that they could consider the ‘value of
life’ of the deceased in awarding damages, and because counsel for
Vance made improper and prejudicial comments to the jury in closing
arguments.” The Court held that it was a matter of law in Mississippi
that no award can be made for loss of value of life in a wrongful death
action.
Dugar v. Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, 565 F.Supp. 2d 120 (DDC 2008). This
decision discussed how lost earnings should be calculated. Judge
Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., said: “When determining whether to award damages
for future lost earnings, the court must consider facts specific to the
plaintiff at issue, such as age, sex, occupational class, and probable
wage increases over the remainder of the plaintiff's working
life.” Judge Kennedy also said: “The discount rate must be
determined by comparing projected growth rates of wages with current
and historic interest rates. The court rejects Dr. Edelman's view that
the net discount rate must be determined using only current interest
rates.”
July 12, 2013
Degraw v. Gualtieri, 2013 U.S.
Dist LEXIS 95853 (M.D. Fla. 2013). The Court issued partial
summary judgment holding that hedonic damages were not allowed under
Section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
given that hedonic damages were not allowed under the Florida Wrongful
Death (F.S. § 768 16-26). (Hedonic damages are allowed under
Section 1983 if allowed under state statutes.) This decision discussed
and mirrored another recent decision of a federal district court in
Florida in Breedlove v. Orange
County Sheriff’s Office, 2012 WL 2389765 (M.D. Fla. 2012).
August 5, 2013
Shirley v. Smith, 261 Kan.
658; 933 P.2d 651 (KS 1997). At issue was whether Shirley could claim
“loss of time” spent catheterizing herself following a medical injury
at wage rates based on what her employer paid her for work time.
The Kansas Supreme Court held that a claim for “loss of time” must be
based on loss of earning capacity, but reversed the court of appeals
and upheld the trial court in holding that time spent by Shirley in
self-cathetarization was an economic loss and not a non economic
loss. The Court said:
For the jury's purpose of placing a
monetary value on the self-catheterization treatment, the evidence of
what an employer would have paid Shirley for her time is not out of
line. Furthermore, Dr. Smith concedes that there is evidence to support
the jury's figure, which was the midpoint of the range suggested
by Shirley's economics expert witness. Although presented in the belief
that the element of damage was loss of time, the evidence serves as
well to establish what Shirley or another nonmedical person would be
paid for the time it takes to administer the treatment. Thus, if there
was error with respect to the label applied to the element of damages,
it was harmless.
August 11, 2013
Jerome v. Watersports Adventure
Rentals, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97146 (D. Virgin Is. 2013). This
decision granted in part and denies in part a renewed defense motion in
limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Richard Moore, an economic
expert who had provided opinions regarding the loss of earning
capacity, future medical expenses, increased insurance premiums and the
discount rate utilized to reduce future values to their present value.
The decision provides a detailed Daubert consideration of three reports
issued by Dr. Moore, which had resulted in decreases in his projections
of lost earning capacity from $3,733,003 in his first report to
$1,841,387 in his second report to $1,802,705 in his third report. This
memorandum opinion by judge Wilma A. Lewis provides a detailed
explanation for why she ultimately excluded Dr. Moore’s opinions about
lost earning capacity, but allowed his testimony regarding future
medical expenses, increased insurance premiums and his discount
rate. The discussion of what Judge Lewis refers to as the
“Pennypack factors” is very instructive.
Tamburri v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.,
2013
U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 86375 (N.D. CA 2013). This order granted defense
motions to strike the expert reports of Everett Harry and Stan V. Smith
because they were not “based at least in part, on the Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition testimony of the named defendants” as required by an earlier
order. The Court had granted permission for a late filing based on the
alleged need for the depositions to prepare the reports. The court
described the excluded reports as follows:
Mr. Harry, an accountant, prepared a
report that seeks to quantify Plaintiff’s lost past and future earnings
resulting from her “deep-seated, enduring emotional harm” cause by
Defendant’s alleged conduct. Mot. Ex. A p. 3. Although the report
alludes to “foreclosure-specific costs that Ms. Tamburri has incurred,
“ Id., Plaintiff has not shown that Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony
was necessary to calculate that figure.
Dr. Smith prepared a report calculating “(1) the additional cost of
mortgage expenses; and (2) the loss of credit expectancy.” Mot. Ex. B.
p. 1. Dr. Smith’s methodology was “generally based on interest rates
and consumer prices.” Id. Nothing in Dr. Smith’s report relies upon
testimony or facts related to the 30(b)(6) depositions.
Meeks v. Murphy Auto Group, Inc.,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132693 (M.D. FL 2010). The Court described Stan
Smith’s proposed testimony as follows: “Regarding damages, Plaintiff
proffers the expert opinions of Stan Smith, Ph.D., who opines that
Plaintiff has sustained $1,772.00 in loss of time spent and $1,000 in
credit expectancy.” Smith’s report was stricken as untimely in that it
was filed after the filing deadline. The Court granted summary judgment
to the defendant on several grounds, including the untimeliness of
Smith’s report.
Bell v. May Department Stores,
6 S.W. 3d 871 (MO 1999). In a decision that has been cited for the
language below, the Missouri Supreme Court said:
An expectancy is "that which is
expected or hoped for." To have valid credit expectancy one need not
have a formal contract. There must be, however, a reasonable
expectation of obtaining credit. This expectancy cannot be too
indefinite or remote.
August 24, 2013
Manko v. United States, 830
F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1987). The 8th Circuit held that the Federal
Tort Claims Act specifies that damages should be based on state law in
the state where a tort claim against the United States occurs, such
that Missouri damages law applied in the case at hand. The Court
interpreted Missouri law as precluding reduction for income taxes when
determining lost earnings in a personal injury action. The Court also
held that damages should not be reduced for Medicare benefits and
Social Security benefits that the plaintiff had or would receive in the
future since those benefits came and would come from a collateral
source. There is, however, an interesting distinction regarding
Medicare benefits in that an earlier 8th Circuit decision in Overton v.
United States, 619 F.2d 1299 (8th Cir. 1980) had held in Missouri a
payment comes from a collateral source if two conditions are met: (1)
that the payment came from a source independent of the liable party and
(2) that the plaintiff “may be said to have contracted with the
prospect of ‘double recovery.” The Court held that Manko had
contributed to the Medicare program and thus satisfied the second prong
of that requirement. The Court also suggested that “a good argument can
be made that” not subtracting taxes in calculating awards for lost
earnings is “unfair to defendants,” that is what the law of Missouri
requires. Suggested by Kurt Krueger.
Dempsey v. Thompson, 363 Mo.
339; 251 S.W.2d 42 (MO 1952). This decision held that income taxes are
not to be deducted in Missouri when calculating an award for loss of
earnings, but that a jury can be given an instruction that an award for
loss of earnings is not subject to income taxes. The Court said:
All of the cases to which we have been
cited or have found bearing directly on this subject uniformly hold
that too many unforeseeable and variable factors would enter into any
attempted computation of income tax liability on loss of future
earnings to permit of any reasonably accurate estimate thereof.
The court also held that there should be no calculation of the tax
consequences of the discount rate. On this issue, the Court said:
It may be argued that if the jury is
instructed an award is not taxable, it should also be instructed that
any income realized therefrom is taxable. But we think not
soundly so. To do so would cause the jury to enter into a field
fully as speculative, if not more so, than an effort to compute and
deduct income tax liability from the estimated gross loss of earnings
before payment of taxes. In the case of income tax liability on
future income realized from investment of the award there is the
additional imponderable of what income, if any, a particular plaintiff
would probably earn from investment thereof. Furthermore, we
believe the jury would assume that any such income was subject to
income tax assessment to the same extent as income from any other
source; and, inasmuch as it could not possibly be estimated, any
reference thereto in an instruction would tend to confuse and distract
the jury and lead it into speculating on the amount thereof.
August 25, 2013
Mickey v. BNSF, 2013 WL
2489832; 2013 Mo. App. 691 (Mo. App. 2013). At the trial court
level, a jury awarded $345,000 to Mickey for damages in an FELA
personal injury matter. In paying the judgement, BNSF withheld
$12,820.80 for Tier I, Tier II and Medicare payroll taxes that were
owing on $345,000 treated as earnings in the year awarded. Mickey
refused to accept payment of $345,000 minus $12,820.80 on the ground
that the award was insufficient based on the jury’s verdict. At issue
was whether the award was for “time lost” working. The trial court
ruled in favor of Mickey and was affirmed by the Missouri Court of
Appeals, saying:
Here, although Plaintiff sought damages
for lost wages along with medical expenses and other damages, BNSF did
nothing to ensure prior to the entry of the judgment that the judgment
entered specify that a portion of the damages awarded to Plaintiff
constituted "pay for time lost."
The Court of Appeals went on to say that a verdict, once reached,
cannot be modified by the court and thus required BNSF to pay Mickey
the full amount of $345,000.
Heckman v. BNSF, 286 Neb. 453
(Neb. 2013). At the trial court level, Heckman was awarded
$145,000 for on-the-job injuries suffered while working for the BNSF.
The BNSF withheld $6,202.70 in Tier I, Tier II and Medicare payroll
taxes that would have been owed on the verdict if treated as an award
for lost earnings (assuming that the award is taxable under IRS
rules). The decision provided a detailed explanation for how
$6,202.70 had been determined as the sum of $2,684.16 for Tier I taxes,
$1,416.04 for Tier II taxes and $2,102.50 for Medicare taxes.
Heckman had earned $42,891.32 working for the BNSF as of the date of
the judgment. That amount had been subtracted from $145,000 in
determining the amounts of the award that were subject to Tier I and
Tier II taxes. The trial court judge ordered BNSF to specify that none
of the award was for lost earnings. The Nebraska Supreme Court
reversed, holding that Nebraska law is based on a presumption that a
general award (as compared with awards for specific categories) means
that the plaintiff has prevailed on all claims. Since one of the claims
was for lost earnings, at least part of the award was for lost
earnings. Under IRS rules, if a general award is partly for lost
earnings, the entire award is treated as if the award was for lost
earnings. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial
court that BNSF report the award as not for time lost and supported the
decision of the BNSF to withhold $6,202.70 for employee payroll taxes
on $145,000 in lost earnings. In doing so, the Nebraska Supreme Court
distinguished its decision from the decision in Mickey v. BNSF (2013) on the basis
of differences in the presumed treatment of general versus special
damages between Missouri and Nebraska. The Nebraska Supreme Court
went on to point out that the parties could have reached a settlement
that specified that none of the award was for “lost time” and therefore
not taxable for Tier I, Tier II and Medicare taxes, but had been unable
to do so.
August 27, 2013
Bloor v. Fritz, 143 Wn. App.
718; 180 P.3d 805 (WA App. 2008). This decision is one of the very few
decisions in which an economic expert is mentioned as provided
testimony with respect to loss of credit expectancy. The economic
expert in this case was Robert Moss, who is identified as providing
both loss of credit expectancy and short-term loss of earnings
projections. With respect to loss of credit expectancy, the Washington
Court of Appeals quoted the trial court decision favorably as follows:
Due to the reduction of the Bloors'
credit scores it is reasonably certain that for at least the next ten
(10) years the Bloors will suffer economic loss when they apply for
credit. A reasonable estimate of the loss they will suffer from the
damage to their credit scores can be made based on the increased cost
they will likely than not [sic] incur to acquire and pay a home
purchase loan. The reduced credit scores the Bloors now have will
result in them having to pay approximately one percentage point more in
interest on a home loan, which translates to a current loss of
$10,000.00, when the added cost of the loan over the normal
amortization period of the loan is reduced to present cash value. This
loss is reasonably certain and based on reliable statistical data
provided by Robert Moss, the Bloor's [sic] economic expert witness.
Further details about how Moss arrived at a figure of $10,000 for loss
of credit expectancy are not provided. Moss also projected a short-term
loss of earnings for Ed Bloor at $7,500 based on the incident causing
the loss of credit expectancy.
August 29, 2013
Parker v. Twentieth Century Fox,
3
Cal. 3d 176; 474 P.2d 689 (Cal. 1970). Parker is the real name of
actress Shirley Maclaine. She had a contract to lead in a musical, but
the contract was cancelled and she was offered an alternative lead in a
movie western. She sued and won $750,000 in damages. The California
Supreme Court said: “[B]efore projected earnings from other employment
opportunities not sought or accepted by the discharged employee can be
applied in mitigation, the employer must show that the other employment
was comparable, or substantially similar, to that which the employee
has been deprived; the employee’s rejection or failure to seek other
available employment of a different or inferior kind may not be
resorted to in order to mitigate damages.” Submitted by Jerry Martin.
(Revised from central file listing.)
August 31, 2013
Nelson v. Cooper T. Smith Stevedoring
Company, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123876 (E.D. LA 2013). Economic
expert Dr. Kenneth J. Boudreaux had projected the lost earning capacity
of Trevis Nelson on the basis of his last year of earnings at
$45,217.90 and on the basis of an average for the last four years of
earnings at $23,031.57. The plaintiff moved to preclude Boudreaux from
testifying based on the four year average. The Court denied Plaintiff’s
motion to limit Boudreaux’s testimony, saying that:
It is well established in the Fifth
Circuit that the trier of fact may rely upon a lost income stream
calculation that is based on an average wage rate, particularly if the
plaintiff has had an inconsistent work history.
After citing several prior decisions that allowed wage loss
calculations to be based on average earnings, the Court described the
plaintiff’s work history as follows:
[P]lantiff’s deposition testimony
discloses that plaintiff held several jobs at varying rates of pay in
the years before his accident. Additionally, he changed jobs
often and was incarcerated for approximately sixteen months beginning
around 2008. Accordingly, it would be reasonable for the jury to
conclude that Dr. Boudreaux’s calculations based on Nelson’s average
income best capture Nelson’s likely future earnings. Exclusion of those
calculations is unwarranted.
September 4, 2013
Gerstenbluth v. Credit Suisse,
2013 U.S. App. 17841 (2nd Cir. 2013). Gerstenbluth had settled a
claim of age discrimination with Credit Suisse Securities for $250,000.
Credit Suisse withheld $4,217.66 for FICA taxes and forwarded the
withheld taxes to (the Court presumed) the IRS. No mention is made
regarding whether Credit Suisse also paid the employer portion of FICA
taxes in addition to the settlement amount. Nothing was apparently
withheld for federal or state income taxes, but a W-2 was issued to
Gerstenbluth for $250,000 as “Wages, Salaries, and Tips.” Both
Gerstenbluth and Credit Suisse acknowledged that FICA taxes should have
been withheld if Gerstenbluth had won an award for back pay and front
pay, but Gerstenbluth argued that a settlement amount was somehow
different. The 2nd Circuit noted that Gerstenbluth’s claim would imply
asymmetric treatment of awards versus settlements and said: “We can
think of no justification for this asymmetric treatment.” On this
basis, the 2nd Circuit upheld the trial court decision in Gerstenbluth
v. Credit Suisse, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14483; 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas.
(CCH); 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6238.
September 8, 2013
Ham v. Maine-New Hampshire Interstate
Bridge Authority, 92 N.H. 268 (1943). The New Hampshire Supreme
Court ruled that damages for loss of enjoyment of life (later called
“hedonic damages) were not available in a wrongful death action in New
Hampshire. The court said:
In the nature of things one may not
himself receive compensation for the wrongful loss of his right to
live, and claim for the loss cannot be an asset of his estate in any
fair view of the compensatory principle of allowable elements of
damages. While allowance for bodily and mental suffering is granted as
in justice imposed on a wrongdoer, the estimate must be within
the bounds of justice. To allow for the enjoyment of continued life
would mean an entrance into a boundless field of arbitrary assessment,
for which no policy of the law exists. The limitation of damages in
actions for death brought under the statute indicates that the policy
for any allowance is of restriction. It is sometimes said that a
wrongdoer is better off in causing death than in causing severe and
lasting injury without death. If this may be considered in the balance
of adjustments in social relations, it does not serve to outweigh the
reasons which bar allowance for damage on this account.
West v. P Bell Helicopter Testron,
Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D. N.H. 2013). The Court held that
Ham v. Maine-New Hampshire Interstate Bridge Authority, 92 N.H. 268
(1943) was still good law in ruling that hedonic damages are not
allowed in a wrongful death action in New Hampshire.
September 19, 2013
Higgs v. State, 222 P.3d 648
(NV 2013). This decision was used by the Nevada Supreme Court to make
it clear that while Nevada accepts the United States Supreme Court
decision on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579
(1993), and progeny as “persuasive,” Nevada has not “adopted” Daubert
as the standard for admission of expert testimony, as some had
interpreted from the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Hallmark v.
Eldridge, 124 Nev 492; 189 P.3d 646 (NV 2008). The Court emphasized
that NRS 50.275 has been and remains the standard. The Court also
repeated that it had articulated five factors to be considered in a
flexible way by district courts in admitting expert testimony, as:
(1) within a recognized field of
expertise; (2) testable and has been tested; (3) published and
subjected to peer review; (4) generally accepted in the scientific
community (not always determinative); and (5) based more on
particularized facts rather than assumption, conjecture, or
generalization.
October 18, 2013
Case v. Town of Cicero, 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148656 (N.D. IL 2013). Item H in this memorandum
concerned the admissibility of hedonic damage testimony by Stan V.
Smith in this personal injury claim. Magistrate Judge Daniel G. Martin
limited Smith’s testimony as follows:
Smith may explain what hedonic damages
mean and the general factors that are ordinarily considered part of
such damages. No dollar amount may be cited, nor may Smith propose any
methodology by which the jury could calculate Nicholas’ hedonic
damages. This testimony will help the jury carry out its fact-finding
function to determine an appropriate amount of damages.
Smith v. Dorchester Real Estate, Inc.,
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20785 (1st Cir. 2013). The 1st Circuit held that
it was reversible error for the trial court to have admitted the
hedonic damage and loss of credit expectancy testimony of Stan V. Smith
(not the plaintiff) and remanded to the trial court a consideration of
Dr. Smith’s loss of time calculations. The decision provided extensive
explanation of the methods used by Smith for each of Smith’s
calculations, with extensive citations of previous decisions
disallowing Smith’s hedonic damages testimony. The court also
rejected Smith’s method for calculating the value of lost credit
expectancy as a mere possibility and unhelpful to a jury, saying:
“Absent evidence to the contrary, Smith’s loss of future credit
expectancy at the rate calculated by Dr. Smith was merely in the realm
of possible harm. As such, it was speculative and should have been
excluded.” The court went on to stress that loss of credit expectancy
was a compensable harm if properly calculated.
October 25, 2013
Willink v. Boyne USA, Inc.,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152566 (D. MT. 2013). The issue at hand was
whether the plaintiff could introduce evidence about amounts originally
billed in addition to amounts actually paid by Medicare in complete
satisfaction of past medical bills of the plaintiff. Both parties
agreed that Montana law limits recovery to amounts actually paid in
satisfaction of those bills, but the plaintiff wanted to present
evidence about amounts originally billed. The Court held that amounts
originally billed could have been presented as evidence if there was
any reason for doing so that could document medical procedures needed
for the future as a foundation for a life care plan. No argument had
been made to that effect in the current case, making such evidence
irrelevant under Rule 402. The court drew a distinction from Chapman v.
Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 7 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (D. MT. 1998), in
which recovery was limited to amounts actually paid, but evidence about
amounts originally billed was deemed relevant “to show the jury the
severity and extent of [plaintiff’s] injuries” and “may bear on the
necessity of future needs and provide a foundation for a life care
plan.”
October 26, 2013
Chesapeake Operating, Inc., v. Hopel,
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 13281 (Tex. App. 2013). The Court of Appeals
reversed a trial court on the issue of damages based on the trial
court’s admission of speculative testimony by vocational expert, Dr.
Cornelius Gorman that was also the basis upon which the lost earning
capacity of the plaintiff had been projected by the plaintiff’s
economist, Dr. Douglas Womack. The court’s discussion of its reasons
for reversing and remanding based on Gorman’s testimony was extensive.
Gorman had opined that the plaintiff would “probably” have received two
promotions to a position earning $125,000 per year in the oil drilling
industry as either “an MWD lead engineer or a directional driller.” The
Court said: “We believe Appellee’s experience in oil drilling, as
testified to by Gorman, was inaccurate and exaggerated. Appellee’s work
history showed he moved from job to job often and in varying
industries.” The court concluded that: “The data underlying Gorman’s
opinion was of such little weight that the jury should not have
received his expert opinion on Appellee’s lost earning capacity.” For
that reason, the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting
Gorman’s testimony. The Court added that: “The trial court likewise
abused its discretion in allowing Gorman to “crunch the numbers” before
the jury based on conjecture.”
Haygood v. Escabedo, 356
S.W.3d 390 (Texas 2011). This Texas Supreme Court decision sets forth
the standard for recovery of medical expenses in Texas as amounts “paid
or incurred by or on behalf of” the claimant under Section 41.0105 of
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court also limited
evidence at trial “to expenses that the (health care) provider has a
legal right to be paid.” The trial court had admitted testimony based
on list prices for medical care on bills issued by medical care
providers. The Court pointed out that such list prices were often a
function of being driven by government regulation and negotiations with
private insurers to set list prices as high as possible, but that
“[f]ew patients today ever pay a hospital’s full charges, due to
Medicare, Medicaid, HM0s and private insurers who pay discounted
rates.” The Court also held that the common law collateral source rule
also applied so that award recipients might receive windfall gains in
the form of an award to cover costs already paid for by third party
insurers. Thus, plaintiffs can only present evidence of amounts
actually paid by themselves or amounts paid by third party insurers to
satisfy health care provider obligations, but can be awarded those
amounts even if plaintiffs have not had to pay those amounts
themselves.
October 27, 2013
Lewis v. Seacor Marine, Inc.,
2002 WL 34359733 (E.D. La. 2002). A motion in limine to limit the
testimony of vocational expert Cornelius Gorman and Douglas Womack was
granted by Judge Kurt D. Englehardt. Gorman assumed that the plaintiff,
who had only worked one month as a deck hand would have rise to captain
status and a captain’s salary within eight years. Womack had calculated
the present value of damages on the basis of Gorman’s report. The Court
said:
[T]he quantum leap to captain and a
captain’s salary for the remainder of (Lewis’s) worklife is not
well-grounded in the facts of this case. Any reliable analysis or
projection would have factored in the plaintiff’s prior work history
and the fact that Lewis had only worked in the marine industry for one
month prior to the accident, and then as a deckhand. There is no
suggestion or innuendo that the injured plaintiff Gary Lewis took any
concrete steps on the difficult road to becoming a captain, nor that he
was even descended from a long line of seafaring captains and harbored
dreams of attaining that position as a youth.
November 30, 2013
Johnson v. Redd, 2013 N.J.
Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2739 (N.J. Super. 2013). This opinion provides
written explanation for the granting of a defense motion to exclude the
hedonic damages testimony of Dr. Stanley V. Smith in a personal injury
action. Smith was permitted to testify as to the plaintiff’s lost wages
and household expenses. The court cited Scheck v. Dalcorso, 2005 N.J.
Super Unpubl LEXIS 178 (App.Div. Dec. 29, 2005) as the only previous
New Jersey decision with respect to hedonic damages. Smith had also
been excluded in that decision. The decision reviewed the “willingness
to pay” (WTP) approach in some detail as well as Smith’s method for
using WTP studies and extensively cited Smith v. Dorchester Real
Estate, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20785 (1st. Cir. Oct. 15, 2013) in
holding that Smith’s testimony did not meet the requirement of New
Jersey’s Frye standard. The court also held that Smith’s “impairment
ratings” of 40% and 80% were arbitrary and therefore unreliable.