Appellate Court Decisions

• Cox v. Matthews (45A05-0803-CV-183)

  Appellate court decision in Indiana upholding expert testimony when there is a basis for permanent impairment in the medical evidence that has already been admitted. The court also upholds the admissibility of an expert based on reliable scientific principles.

• Edwards v. Atchison, Topeka RR (291 Ill.App.3d 817, 684 N.E.2d 919; 1997; Appellate Court of Illinois, First District)

  The decision addresses the proper method of calculating loss of Tier I and Tier II benefits in FELA cases. These must be calculated as the loss of the actual retirement benefit, not as a percent of wages.

• Johnson v. CSX Transportation (04 L 4146; Circuit Court of Cook County)

  Appellate decision affirming the use of ACS data for physical disability.

• Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation v. Howard E. Pfeifer (462 U.S. 523; 1983; US Supreme Court)

  This decision discusses the methodology for determining damages in federal court. It also notes that since it is impossible to predict a future loss with complete confidence, the award must be a "rough and ready" estimate of lost earnings.

• Kennington v. Bankruptcy Estate of St. Joseph's Hospital, et al (19C01-0404-CT-0165; Dubois County Circuit Court)

  Case summary noting decision after oral arguments allowing John Tierney's testimony.

• Kent Village Associates Joint Venture, et al. v. Kimberly Smith, a minor, etc., et al (657 A.2d 330 Court of Special Appeals of Maryland)

  The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing a rehabilitation counselor to testify on a life care plan using various medical evidence and other facts.

• Knitowsky v Gundy (A-5945-09T1: Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division)

  Affirmed on both the appeal and the cross-appeal. Allow expert's testimony.

• O'Shea v. Riverway Towing (677 F.2d 1194; Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

  This decision addresses the proper method of determining the lost earnings of the plaintiff. As part of the decision, the court notes that the probability of employment by year should be considered. The court also notes that the economic testimony should avoid the illusion of "delusive exactness."

• Shaheen v. Advantage (1/04-1070; Appellate Court of Illinois)

  Appellate court decision referenced in Johnson v. CSX Transportation. Qualifications and use of data are not challenged. Defense challenged the weight of the evidence that the plaintiff earned more the year following his accident. Court found an adequate foundation for opinions with credentials and of data used by persons in his profession.

• Stichnoth v. Shafer (No. 91A04-0611-CV-611; Court of Appeals of Indiana; 2007)

  The Appeals Court upheld the trial court's decision allowing Dr. Berla's testimony, despite testimony by Dr. Skoog that the method is "junk science."

• Trevino v. U.S. (804 F.2d 1512; US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; 1987)

  This decision supports consisgtency in tax calculations; if taxes are considered for earnings, they must also be considered for interest earned from investment of the award. It also supports use of "best and safest investments" and use of long historical periods for estimating future rates.

• Wright v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. et al

  Defendants object to the use of the U.S. Census Bureau's CPS for deriving earnings and employment information for people with and without a work disability. Court concluded that the CPS is relevant and reliable to this case.