Court: United States District Court for the District of MaineJurisdiction: FederalCase Name: Howard v. Demo SalvageCitation: 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15269
Facts
This case involves a plaintiff who sustained serious workplace injuries when a 3,000 lb slab of cement fell through a hole in the floor and struck her. As a result of her injuries, the plaintiff required several hospitalizations, corrective surgeries, and allegedly suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant corporation claiming negligence and filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the defendant’s vocational rehabilitation and life care planning expert witness.
The Vocational Rehabilitation Expert
According to the defendant, the expert planned to opine on the plaintiff’s employability, transferable skills learned from past occupations and earning capacity in the local labor market. The expert was also retained to determine the feasibility of the plaintiff receiving vocational rehabilitation services.
The vocational rehabilitation expert expressed that the plaintiff could be placed in the job market on a full-time, competitive basis as a pipefitter and/or a pipefitter helper. He also opined in his report that the plaintiff had sustained no loss of earnings due to her injuries. The expert further asserted that the plaintiff’s ability to replace her earnings was dependent on her motivation to remain employed. The plaintiff sought to exclude the testimony claiming it was not sufficiently reliable and that the expert reached conclusions beyond his expertise.
Court Discussion
The plaintiff’s argument relied partly on the fifth part of the expert’s methodology in which he stated he reviewed all the materials before formulating his opinion. As the plaintiff noted, the expert reserved the right to modify his vocational opinions in light of additional opinions and that the expert deposition illustrates that subsequent information could change some of his conclusions. It was determined, however, that although the expert did not review the deposition of the plaintiff or personally interview her by the time of his deposition, these facts had nothing to do with the admissibility of the expert’s testimony.
The expert’s opinion on the impact of the plaintiff’s psychological condition on her employability seemed to be grounded in his prior experience with individuals who suffered from PTSD and returned to work. He also had doubts about the plaintiff’s motivation to seek work, which he seemed to derive from what he viewed as her “documented lack of purpose” and the fact that she returned to work, albeit relatively briefly, after her injury. In the court’s view, the expert could opine, based on his experience and professional expertise, that plaintiff’s PTSD diagnosis did not necessarily mean she had no earning capacity.
Held
The court concluded that the expert expected testimony was fundamentally supported, sufficiently reliable to assist the jury, and that any deficiencies in his methodology or the foundation for his conclusions could be adequately addressed through cross-examination. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the expert’s testimony of the expert, holding that the expert was not substituting his opinions for those of mental health professio
About the author
Zach Barreto
Zach Barreto is a distinguished professional in the legal industry, currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Research at the Expert Institute. With a deep understanding of a broad range of legal practice areas, Zach's expertise encompasses personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, defective products, and many other sectors. His skills are particularly evident in handling complex litigation matters, including high-profile cases like the Opioids litigation, NFL Concussion Litigation, California Wildfires, 3M earplugs, Elmiron, Transvaginal Mesh, NFL Concussion Litigation, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, Hernia Mesh, IVC filters, Paraquat, Paragard, Talcum Powder, Zantac, and many others.
Under his leadership, the Expert Institute’s research team has expanded impressively from a single member to a robust team of 100 professionals over the last decade. This growth reflects his ability to navigate the intricate and demanding landscape of legal research and expert recruitment effectively. Zach has been instrumental in working on nationally significant litigation matters, including cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, toxic chemical exposure, and wrongful death, among others.
At the Expert Institute, Zach is responsible for managing all aspects of the research department and developing strategic institutional relationships. He plays a key role in equipping attorneys for success through expert consulting, case management, strategic research, and expert due diligence provided by the Institute’s cloud-based legal services platform, Expert iQ.
Educationally, Zach holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and European History from Vanderbilt University.
