24 results for 'cat:"Employment" AND cat:"Experts"'.
J. Westbrooks finds the commission properly increased the former police officer's disability benefits and found she suffered an 80% loss in earning capacity after a near-death assault by a suspect. While testimony from the police department's physician attributed at least some of her PTSD to general work conditions, the testimony from an independent medical evaluator supported the increase in benefits. The commission was in the best position to determine witness credibility and because it did not completely disregard the evidence from the police physician, its decision was not against the weight of the evidence. Affirmed.
Court: Mississippi Court Of Appeals, Judge: Westbrooks, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 2022-WC-1050, Categories: employment, experts, Workers' Compensation
[Consolidated.] J. Duhart finds the trial court properly struck portions of an expert witness's affidavit provided on behalf of the injured employee. The witness specifically claimed the employer knew the dangerous nature of an asphalt mixing tank and acted with deliberate intent to injure the employee, which exceeded the scope of his knowledge. Meanwhile, even though OSHA had instructed the employer to put a safety cover on the mixer, the employee failed to prove deliberate intent to injure, considering his testimony that he had worked on the machine for over eight years and did not consider it unsafe; therefore, the court properly granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Duhart, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1617, Categories: employment, Tort, experts
J. Crone grants in part the opposing motions to exclude expert testimony in an employment discrimination case alleging ADA violations when a welder's conditional job offer was revoked due to the presence of methadone and Xanax in his drug screen. For instance, the expert for the employer parties may not testify about the welder's "possible diversion of his medication" since it is not relevant and is prejudicial. Also, certain statements in the report of the EEOC's rebuttal expert should be stricken for being "impermissible legal conclusions."
Court: USDC Eastern District of Texas , Judge: Crone, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv451, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, employment, experts
J. Brimmer denies a company's motion to exclude expert testimony in a dispute over a sales contract because the expert's scope of knowledge included hiring, training, development, and managing sales associates.
Court: USDC Colorado, Judge: Brimmer, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv763, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: employment, experts, Contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Garland declines to exclude certain expert testimony in the corrections officer's complaint alleging that he became ill as a result of mold exposure in the basement of the corrections center. The government's expert has a doctorate degree and more than 20 years of experience conducting scientific research and leading teams in various fields, including public health and mold remediation, so he is qualified to testify at trial about the mold levels at the center.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Houston, Filed On: March 13, 2024, Case #: 3:19cv2138, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, employment, experts
J. Guidry finds that the lower court properly affirmed a decision of the civil service board that upheld the officer's termination after an incident in which she was found outside of a bar in her marked police vehicle and could not drive home due to being intoxicated. The fired officer claimed the incident resulted from her use of prescribed antidepressant medication and having a few drinks, but the record supports the finding that she violated departmental policy and that her termination was done in good faith and for cause. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Guidry, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 2023CW0880, Categories: Administrative Law, employment, experts
J. Hinderaker grants an employment screening service's motion for summary judgment concerning Fair Credit Reporting Act violations brought by a former nurse, who's licensed was revoked by department of health and human services. The screening service sufficiently showed in court that the FCRA allows it report that the former employee is excluded from gaining employment in the federal healthcare arena.
Court: USDC Arizona, Judge: Hinderaker, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv206, NOS: Consumer Credit - Other Suits, Categories: employment, Health Care, experts
J. Marks grants, in part, Hyundai’s motion for summary judgment in this ADA employment dispute brought by a former employee. The employee alleges Hyundai failed to accommodate after she disclosed, she had shoulder, back, neurological issues and her doctor advised her to not step on or off of a moving platform in the manufacturing facility. The overhead restrictions cannot be sustained for ADA because it falls short of the four process requirements, and her back and neurological issues accommodations note had expired. Therefore, the failure to accommodate and wrongful termination due to an actual disability is dismissed. Her motion to exclude an affidavit testimony is denied as moot. Hyundai’s motion to strike the EEOC position statement is denied. The claims of wrongful termination based on a perceived disability will proceed for the jury to determine.
Court: USDC Middle District of Alabama, Judge: Marks, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv530, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, employment, experts
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the hearing officer improperly denied the correctional officer's application for disability benefits based on an expert's conclusions that were conclusory and unsupported. The expert testified he could not say with certainty whether the employee suffered a period of disability after his lower back injury, but nevertheless concluded the incident did not result in the employee being disabled from work. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: January 24, 2024, Case #: 00316, Categories: employment, experts, Workers' Compensation
J. Ray partially grants the ex-police officer's motion to exclude expert testimony in a race discrimination and employment retaliation action against the mayor and the police chief arising after he was fired. The expert, who is also a police chief, may not offer legal conclusions, tell the jury what result to reach or opine as to what legal authority city policies or practices bestow on the police chief. The expert can talk about how industry customs and practices are shaped by legal requirements. The police chief's motion to preclude certain opinions from the ex-police officer's expert law enforcement officials is denied.
Court: USDC Southern District of Georgia, Judge: Ray, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 4:21cv111, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: experts, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. McConnell finds that the trial court should have admitted testimony from medical experts regarding the possible relationship between diesel exhaust and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in a wrongful death case. Though the connection has not been definitely made in scientific literature, the experts' medical training would allow them to bridge the analytical gap. Vacated.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: McConnell, Filed On: January 4, 2024, Case #: D082229, Categories: employment, experts, Wrongful Death
J. Moore denies the coal mining company's petition for review of the administrative law judge's award of black lung benefits, ruling that even though some of the experts in the case expressed doubt as to whether the decedent was totally disabled, his arterial blood-gas test results qualified him for benefits regardless of any contrary evidence and did not require a denial of his widow's claim.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Moore, Filed On: December 4, 2023, Case #: 23-3238, Categories: employment, experts
J. Hicks denies a request by a nonprofit health care agency to exclude the expert testimony of a physician who treated a fired employee for physical pain and severe depression allegedly related to a physical workplace confrontation leading to her claims of racial bias, retaliation and vicarious liability against her ex-employer. The exclusion of the doctor’s testimony is not warranted. However, he may only testify to his personal knowledge obtained from examining and treating the woman. Any other opinions are specifically excluded and prohibited as he did not submit a report as required by rule.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Hicks, Filed On: October 13, 2023, Case #: 6:22cv962, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Evidence, experts, employment Discrimination
J. Guidry, following a non-jury trial, denies a seaman’s request for punitive damages against his employer for failing to pay for a radio frequency ablation procedure on his strained back recommended by his board-certified neurological surgeon. The procedure is a pain relief treatment that will not improve the seaman’s back injury. The ruling approved a minimally invasive spinal fusion operation for the deckhand recommended by the employers’ independent physician.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Guidry, Filed On: July 11, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv237, NOS: Marine - Contract, Categories: employment, Health Care, experts
J. Drain grants an employee an extension to file an expert witness list after she claimed an employment agency rejected her applications for certain advertised positions based on sex, race, and age. The motion went unopposed since the agency did not file a response.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Judge: Drain, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv12532, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Civil Procedure, experts, employment Discrimination