George Tedder v. American Railcar Industries
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 417
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff George Tedder, a welder, was knocked off a table by a coworker driving a golf cart on April 24, 2008 and thereafter developed chronic back pain and disability.
- Tedder had prior work-related back injuries (late 1970s, 2000, 2006), but several lay witnesses testified he was asymptomatic immediately before the golf-cart accident.
- Tedder sued American Railcar Industries (ARI) for negligence (filed 2009); ARI conceded negligence but contested causation and damages.
- At trial, Dr. Gregory Ricca offered a differential-diagnosis opinion that the golf-cart accident caused Tedder’s symptoms; on cross-examination he acknowledged he had not known of some prior injuries initially but later qualified his opinion to depend on Tedder being asymptomatic pre-accident.
- The jury returned a large verdict for Tedder (total over $2.28M). The district court found juror passion/prejudice against defense counsel influenced damages and ordered partial remittitur (reducing two awards), and denied ARI’s motions for JMOL/new trial.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: expert testimony admissible, evidence sufficient for causation, and the district court did not abuse discretion in denying a new trial and in ordering partial remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Ricca’s differential-diagnosis under Daubert | Ricca’s diagnosis reliably shows the accident caused Tedder’s symptoms | Diagnosis unreliable because Ricca lacked knowledge of prior injuries and relied on plaintiff’s statements | Admissible: district court did not abuse discretion; diagnosis valid despite learning of prior injuries at trial and relying on tests plus records and patient history (Turner/Glastetter framework) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for causation (motion for JMOL) | Conditional expert opinion + lay testimony that Tedder was asymptomatic before accident suffices | Ricca’s opinion was too equivocal to support causation | Denied JMOL: conditional expert testimony can be considered by jury under Arkansas law; lay evidence could establish the condition in the qualifier required by the expert |
| Whether passion/prejudice required a new trial instead of remittitur | Jury award was inflamed by animus toward defense counsel; new trial required | Remittitur appropriate given ARI’s admitted negligence and equities of avoiding retrial that would harm plaintiff | Denied new trial: abuse-of-discretion standard favors remittitur here because liability conceded and prejudice related to counsel’s conduct rather than inflammatory evidence; retrial would be unfair to plaintiff |
| Scope and amount of remittitur | Plaintiff: verdict should stand intact | Defendant: damages excessive; some awards should be reduced further | Partial remittitur affirmed for two awards (reduced to $250,000 each) but court declined to remit future wages and visible-effects awards as those were supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping standard for expert testimony)
- Turner v. Iowa Fire Equip. Co., 229 F.3d 1202 (differential diagnoses presumptively admissible)
- Glastetter v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 252 F.3d 986 (district court may exclude only scientifically invalid diagnoses)
- Bland v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) L.L.C., 538 F.3d 893 (failure to consider alternative causes can invalidate a differential diagnosis)
- In re Baycol Prods. Litig., 596 F.3d 884 (warning against sole reliance on plaintiff’s self-reported history)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Prothro, 590 S.W.2d 35 (Ark. App.) (conditional expert testimony may be submitted to jury with corroborating lay evidence)
- Parsons v. First Investors Corp., 122 F.3d 525 (remittitur vs. new trial—court may consider equities)
- Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 820 F.2d 928 (remittitur required to avoid repeated retrials when prejudice shown)