The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division recently seized an opportunity to adopt an Eighth Circuit standard precluding defense experts from offering opinions on “symptom magnification, malingering, or other equivalent concepts in civil jury cases.” Despite the Eighth Circuit’s location in St. Louis, Missouri, and no New Jersey precedent in the matter, the Appellate Division held in Rodriguez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. that such expert testimony had invaded “the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of the testimony of a witness.”
Plaintiff Alexandra Rodriguez had appealed a Gloucester County jury’s “no-cause” defense verdict rendered after the defense expert, a neurologist, had opined that his observations of the Plaintiff during an independent medical examination were consistent with “somatization,” a process where an individual describes subjective symptoms that are not consistent with objective findings, and that she was instead “magnifying her symptoms.” Despite the physician’s numerous qualifications in neurology, internal medicine, and electrical brain studies, as well as his experience in treatment of patients with psychological disorders, he was unable to formally diagnose a somatoform disorder, and conceded on the record that a psychiatrist would need to confirm such a diagnosis. Objections from Plaintiff’s counsel prior to the testimony had led to a N.J. R. Evid. 104 hearing during trial in the matter, after which the trial court allowed the above testimony, with the admonishment to refrain from judgments as to the Plaintiff’s credibility. Following the conclusion of proof, the jury returned a verdict against the Plaintiff and in favor of the Defendant.
Issuing a lengthy opinion to overturn the jury verdict and order a new trial, New Jersey’s Appellate Division elected to adopt the Eighth Circuit standard established in Nichols v. American National Insurance Company, which Plaintiff’s counsel had cited in a pretrial motion during Rodriguez. Specifically, the Court took issue with the defense expert’s answering of a question ultimately reserved for the jury alone, holding that “[w]eighing evidence and determining credibility are tasks exclusive to the jury, and an expert should not offer an opinion about the truthfulness of witness testimony” (citing Nichols). The Court clarified that a qualified defense expert is not precluded from testifying about observations as to the Plaintiff’s movements, or from testifying that subjective complaints appear to be inconsistent with objective medical tests. However, an expert must refrain from stating before the jury the opinion that the Plaintiff is magnifying or exaggerating symptoms, which the Appellate Division considers to be a “thinly veiled comment on a witness’s credibility.”
Where testifying experts could previously use their expertise in neurology or orthopedics to conclude that a Plaintiff appeared motivated by exaggeration or secondary gain factors, a line must now be drawn to instead allow jurors to make that conclusion on their own, “based on ordinary experiences of life and common knowledge about human nature.” If an examining doctor observes a Plaintiff with an alleged shoulder injury reaching for her coat as she exits, the observation is admissible, but any opinion on that action must be formed by the jury “without any pejorative labeling or credibility opinions from the defense expert.”
Falling out of a Bucket Does Not Guarantee Success under the New York Labor Laws
In Joseph Robinson v. National Grid Energy Management LLC, et al., plaintiff fell from an aerial bucket lift and filed suit against the defendants, alleging his injuries arose from defendants’ violations of the New York Labor Laws.
Plaintiff Joseph Robinson was employed as an electrical foreman for a company hired by one of the defendants. On the date of the accident, plaintiff was directed to assist in the installation of an antenna located atop a utility pole. However, after plaintiff climbed into the lift bucket, which was located on top of a truck, the lift mechanism failed and the bucket remained stuck on top of the truck. When plaintiff realized he was unable to raise the lift, he attempted to climb out of the bucket. While exiting the bucket, plaintiff’s foot became stuck in a part of the bucket, causing him to slip and fall approximately twelve to fifteen feet. Plaintiff testified, at his deposition, that the part of the bucket in which his foot became stuck was typically covered by a “dielectric liner.”
At the close of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, and the Court granted dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6); plaintiff appealed. Labor Law § 240(1) requires contractors, owners, and their agents to provide adequate safety protection and safety devices, to their workers, for height-related risks. Labor Law § 241(6) requires that contractors, owners, and their agents provide adequate protection and safety in all worksite areas affected by construction-related work.
In upholding the dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim, the Second Department reasoned that: (1) the bucket truck from which the injured plaintiff fell was not defective or inadequate insofar as it related to providing him with fall protection, and (2) the “dielectric liner”, which was missing from the bucket, was designed to protect against electric shocks, and not falls from the bucket. The dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim was upheld because the Court determined that the work plaintiff was performing at the time of his accident did not involve construction, demolition, or excavation.
As such, the Second Department has reminded us that not all worksite, height-related falls are entitled to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and further, that all claims pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6) must arise from a construction-related task, and not routine maintenance or routine installations.
Medical Marijuana Covered Under Workers’ Compensation
A New Jersey Administrative Law Judge recently held that an employer’s workers’ compensation carrier was required to pay for an injured worker’s medical marijuana. That worker, Andrew Watson, a 39-year-old man from Manahawkin, New Jersey, injured his hand while using a power saw in 2008 at an 84 Lumber outlet. As a result of the accident, Mr. Watson suffered lingering neuropathic pain in his hand, which he treated using opioids. In 2014, Andrew Watson enrolled in New Jersey’s medical marijuana program. Mr. Watson’s medical marijuana treatment had been helping to relieve his pain, and was helping him to avoid dangerous opioid use, but he could not afford to pay for the marijuana necessary for his treatment. The cost of marijuana was approximately $475 an ounce, and Mr. Watson’s employer’s workers’ compensation carrier refused to pay for the treatment, and as such, he stopped using it. Mr. Watson then sought legal action to be reimbursed for his prescription costs, as well as to gain insurance coverage for future prescriptions as part of his enrollment in New Jersey’s medical marijuana program.
The attorney for the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier argued that Mr. Watson’s ailment did not qualify for medical marijuana under the state program and that the doctor who prescribed the marijuana for Mr. Watson was not his treating physician.
New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Ingrid L. French found that Watson’s ailment, that is, intractable neuropathic pain, is a qualifying condition under the state program and that the prescribing doctor was a partner of Mr. Watson’s treating physician, and was therefore eligible to assess his condition. Judge French’s decision stated that she found Mr. Watson to be a credible witness, finding that “[h]e testified that the effects of the marijuana, in many ways, is not as debilitating as the effects of Percocet…. Ultimately, the petitioner was able to reduce his use of oral narcotic medication… The court found the petitioner’s approach to his pain management needs has been cautious, mature, and overall, he is exceptionally conscientious in managing his pain.”
Mr. Watson also had an expert witness, a psychiatrist, Edward H. Tobe, who testified about the risks associated with taking opioids, as well as the benefits cannabis medicine has provided, and will continue to provide, to Mr. Watson. He testified that marijuana helped reduce Mr. Watson’s use of opioids and would likely help him “achieve better function” in his hand.
Ultimately, Judge French held that “the petitioner’s ‘trial’ use of medicinal marijuana has been successful. While the court is sensitive to the controversy surrounding the medical use of marijuana, whether or not it should be prescribed for a patient in a state where it is legal to prescribe is a medical decision that is within the boundaries of the law in the state.” Judge French ruled in favor of Mr. Watson, finding that his use of medical marijuana was “reasonable and necessary.”
While this decision was not appealed, and therefore does not set a precedent in the State of New Jersey, it is persuasive. Accordingly, workers’ compensation carriers in New Jersey, and in other states where medical marijuana has been legalized, have been put on notice that courts have and likely will continue to rule that medical marijuana can be covered under insurance programs.
New Jersey Appellate Division Clarifies an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently issued an opinion reinforcing an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify an insured under a liability policy. In its decision, the Appellate Division ruled that an insurer was required to reimburse the expenses incurred by its insured in defending itself against cross-claims for defense and indemnification.
In this matter, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that she was injured when she slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot. Company A, which owned the parking lot, entered into a contract with Company B, wherein Company B agreed to plow and salt the subject parking lot. Company B plowed and salted the subject parking lot one day prior to the plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall. The services agreement provided that Company B would indemnify and hold Company A harmless for any injuries sustained arising out of or relating to Company B’s performance of its services.
In the course of the underlying litigation, Company A filed cross-claims for defense and indemnification against Company B. Company B’s insurer denied coverage to Company B as to the cross-claims for defense and indemnification, and recommended Company B secure personal counsel at its own expense to defend against the cross-claims. At trial, the jury found that Company B bore no liability for plaintiff’s accident.
On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed that Company B’s insurer was required to defend Company B against Company A’s cross-claims and reimburse Company B its defense expenses. The Appellate Division reasoned that Company B agreed to indemnify and defend Company A for injuries sustained by any third person arising out of or relating to Company B’s services, regardless of whether Company A was negligent. The Appellate Division also provided that the insurer’s policy provided Company B with coverage in the event Company B had to indemnify Company A. Due to the jury’s determination that plaintiff’s injuries did not arise out of nor relate to the services provided by Company B, Company A was not entitled to a defense and indemnification. However, the Appellate Division noted that, during the pendency of the underlying litigation, the question of B’s liability was unresolved. As a result, A’s cross-claims against B were viable, and B’s insurer was obligated to provide B with a defense in connection to the cross-claims against it. The Appellate Division explained that, under New Jersey law, an insurer is contractually obliged to provide the insured with a defense against all actions covered by the insurance policy, and that the duty to defend is triggered by the filing of a complaint alleging a covered claim. As a result, B’s insurer was required by its policy to defend B against A’s cross-claims.
The Appellate Division’s decision in this matter enforces New Jersey’s jurisprudence providing that an insurer is obligated to provide its insured with a defense to a complaint which merely alleges facts within the policy’s coverage. As a result, New Jersey insurers are exposed to potential liability for its insured’s legal expenses where a complaint merely alleges facts that fall within the policy’s coverage, even if the allegations are meritless or frivolous.
Florida Reverting To Frye?
On February 16, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision rejecting the Daubert standard for introduction of expert testimony, to the extent it is “procedural.” For years, Florida Courts followed the Frye standard for the admission of expert testimony. Under the Frye standard, the proponent of expert testimony need only establish that the theory was “generally accepted within the expert’s field.”
Back in 2013, the legislature passed HB 7015, effectively codifying the Daubert standard by amending Florida Statute 90.702, titled “Testimony by Experts.” The Daubert standard, intends to ensure reliability of expert testimony by placing the burden on the offering party to meet the following requirements: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
As stated above, the Frye standard permits expert opinion as long as the testimony is generally accepted in the particular field. Daubert requires the trial judge to act as a “gatekeeper” by ruling on the “reliability” of expert testimony before it can be presented to the jury. This process often requires a “trial within a trial” before a jury is ever impaneled. The Court “decline[d] to adoptDaubert to the extent that it is procedural, due to the constitutional concerns raised,” which include “undermining the right to a jury trial and denying access to courts.”
The Florida Supreme Court left open the question of constitutionality of Daubert until a “proper case and controversy” is before it, as well as the question of whether the application of Frye orDaubert is substantive or procedural in nature. Until such a question is before the Court, it is unclear the effect this decision will have on Florida attorneys and their clients.
No Recovery For Worker Injured While Remedying Dangerous Condition, Says New York’s First Department
Should a maintenance worker hired to clean a dangerous condition be able to recover for injuries suffered while cleaning or removing that dangerous condition? The answer is no, according to New York’s First Department.
In Black v. Wallace Church Association, plaintiff Calvin Black had been hired as a janitor for the defendant. As a janitor, plaintiff’s duties included cleaning the building, which included the bathrooms. Plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he slipped and fell on pebbles while cleaning the bathroom floor. However, plaintiff testified that while cleaning the bathroom previously, he often removed pebbles from the bathroom floor.
In upholding the trial court’s order granting defendant summary judgment, the First Department held, “It is well established that a maintenance or cleaning worker has no claim at law for injury suffered from a dangerous condition that he was hired to remedy”. In reaching their decision, the Court cited Jackson v. Board of Education of the City of New York.
In Jackson, plaintiff alleged injuries following a slip and fall on a piece of lettuce. At the time of the accident, plaintiff Roosevelt Jackson was employed by Aramark and worked in the school in which he fell; his duties included sweeping the area of his alleged accident. The Court in Jackson upheld the dismissal of plaintiff’s Complaint, and reasoned: “Given that there is no evidence even remotely suggesting that anyone connected with defendants created the condition complained of, the lack of actual or constructive notice of its existence on the part of any of the defendants serves to relieve all of them of any liability for plaintiff's accident. Moreover, since it was plaintiff's job to clean the floor of the type of foreign substance (vegetable matter) that he slipped on, FIT [the school] owed him no duty to keep the floor clean of such material. FIT “could not have provided plaintiff with a work place that was safe from the defect that his employer was engaged to eliminate.”
As such, a plaintiff hired to clean, or remedy, some type of dangerous condition cannot recover for injuries suffered due to that specific dangerous condition. Therefore, in premises liability cases brought by maintenance and cleaning workers of the premises, it should always be investigated whether the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a dangerous condition for which they were hired to remedy.