Larry R. Bingman v. Baltimore County
714 F. App'x 244
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Larry R. Bingman, a Baltimore County highway laborer, sued the County under the ADA and Maryland employment law claiming he was terminated because of disability.
- A jury awarded Bingman $400,000 total, including $298,000 in non-economic damages and $6,000 for unlawful medical inquiry/examination.
- The County appealed, arguing evidentiary errors: exclusion of evidence that Bingman applied for and received SSDI benefits, and the district court’s refusal to give a jury instruction requiring Bingman to reconcile any inconsistencies between his SSDI application and his ADA claim.
- The County also challenged the sufficiency and excessiveness of the jury’s non-economic damages award.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed evidentiary rulings and jury instructions for abuse of discretion (and legal correctness of instructions de novo) and affirmed the district court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of SSDI-application evidence | Bingman: SSDI statements were admissible and were presented; no special exclusion. | County: District court barred evidence of Bingman’s SSDI award and should have been allowed to present it and get an instruction about inconsistencies. | Court: No reversible error; County was permitted to question Bingman about SSDI statements and jury was properly instructed to consider them. |
| Jury instruction on reconciling SSDI statements | Bingman: No special negative presumption required; ordinary instruction sufficient. | County: Needed a specific instruction imposing obligation to explain inconsistencies (per Cleveland concern). | Court: District court’s instructions were adequate; no special presumption required and no reversible error. |
| Admissibility / damages for unlawful medical inquiry and exam | Bingman: County unlawfully requested cancer records and compelled an exam; these are separate wrongs entitling him to damages. | County: Such inquiries/exam should not have supported damages. | Court: Evidence showed County obtained irrelevant cancer records and ordered an exam on speculation; jury could award damages for these acts. |
| Excessiveness of non-economic damages | Bingman: Testimony established emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life warranting award. | County: $298,000 non-economic award is unsupported and grossly excessive. | Court: Award not grossly excessive or against clear weight of evidence; defer to jury on subjective harms. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Achiekwelu, 112 F.3d 747 (4th Cir. 1997) (district court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 2011) (evidentiary rulings overturned only if arbitrary and irrational)
- Gentry v. E. W. Partners Club Mgmt. Co., Inc., 816 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2016) (jury instructions reviewed for abuse of discretion; legal correctness reviewed de novo)
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (U.S. 1999) (no automatic adverse presumption from pursuing SSDI when asserting ADA claim)
- United States v. Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2008) (courts presume juries follow instructions)
- Gregg v. Ham, 678 F.3d 333 (4th Cir. 2012) (district court abuses discretion upholding damages only when verdict is against weight of evidence or based on false evidence)
- Fox v. Gen. Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2001) (jury awards for intangible harms receive deference unless grossly excessive)
- Hetzel v. Cty. of Prince William, 89 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 1996) (compensatory damages set aside only if verdict is against clear weight of evidence)