Topics Discussed Include:

• Daubert Evidence Rules etc. ("Expert" Testimony)
• Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations
• Doctrine of Contra Proferentem
• Precedent on the use of Attending Physician Statements
• Precedent concerning Residual Functional Capacity exams/reports
• More (See other  for jury vs. bench trial precedents.)

Case List Follows:

• Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations I: Shockley v. Alyeska (9th Circuit, 1997)
• Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations II: Diana Hightshue v. AIG (7th Circuit, 1998)
• Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations III: Saltarelli v. Bob Baker Group Medical Trust (9th Circuit, 1994)
  Note: Above sorta slide into Contra Proferentem and are tied into the Standard of Review stuff in the preceeding section.
• Oh, Did we say Contra Proferentem? Rhorer v. Raytheon (5th Circuit, 7/99)  Don't be fooled by the slow start, it gets better.
• "Daubert" Evidence Information
• Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael No. 97-1709 (11th Cir. 1999)  "The Daubert "gatekeeping" obligation applies not only to "scientific" testimony, but to all expert testimony. Rule 702 does not distinguish between "scientific" knowledge and "technical" or "other specialized" knowledge, but makes clear that any such knowledge might become the subject of expert testimony. It is the Rule's word "knowledge," not the words (like "scientific") that modify that word, that establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability."
• Weisgram et al. v. Marley Co. et al. (U.S. Supreme Court 2/22/2000)  Summary Judgment Rules when Daubert evidence is considered unreliable and thrown out.
• (no link, it's a District Court case from Los Angeles 98-4246) Rosenthal v. Long-Term Disability Plan of Epstein, Becker & Green (February, 2000) -- Trial lawyers must, by definition, be able to work 16-20 hour days on occasion and if their health precludes it they are disabled. "Rosenthal's physicians recognized the true nature of her occupation; Paul Revere's administrator and medical personnel either ignored or failed to understand."
• Reddick v. Chatter (9th Circuit Court, 1999) 98 C.D.O.S. 7628, D.C. No. CV-96-20331-RMW CT:USCA 9, DT:19981006 ABS: Patient with CFS applied for SS disability. Unless there is affirmative evidence showing that the claimant is malingering, the ALJ's reasons for rejecting her testimony must be "clear and convincing." "Disability claimants should not be penalized for attempting to lead normal lives in the face of their limitations," the court ruled in sending the case back to the Administrative Law Judge to award disability benefits."
• Mitchell v. Eastman Kodak (3d Circuit 5/1997)  "Filed May 8, 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 96-7034 GEORGE W. MITCHELL v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY Appellant According to the record before us, the Administrator denied Mitchell's claim for LTD benefits because Mitchell had failed to tender "objective medical evidence" that he was unable to engage in any substantial gainful work as of June 26, 1989. We hold that, in this context, it was arbitrary and capricious for the Administrator to deny Mitchell LTD benefits for this reason.
• Dettman v. Cigna, State Farm et.al.(US Dist. Ct. Eastern Dist of Pennsylvania 4/99)  Court denied State Farm's motion to dismiss, saying "...the plaintiff does not have to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim...(Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 1957)...(but) need only 'give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests'."
• Taft v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 9 F. 3d 1469 (9th Circuit 1993)In and ERISA Case, a district court may not consider evidence that is not part of the administrative record.
• See also the following in the Judy Morris section of this Case Law Site:
  • Clausen v. Standard Insurance Co. 961 F. Supp. 46 (D. Colo. 1997)
  • Cohen v. Secretary of H.H.S. 964 F. 2d 524 (6th Cir. 1992)
  • Dorsk v. UNUM, No. 97-87-P-C (Me.d.Apr.10, 1998)
  • Gaylor v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. 112 F. 3d 460 (10th Cir. 1997)
  • Godfrey v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. 11th Cir 95-6480
  • Irwin v. Shalala, 840 F. Supp. 751 (D. Oregon 1993)
  • Marshall v. Sullivan, 914 F. 2d 248 (4th Circuit 1990)
  • Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Disability Plan, 46 F. 3d 938 (9th Cir 1995)
  • Rodriguez, 876 F. 2d at 762
  • Rose v. Shalala, 34 F. 3d (1st Circuit 1994)
  • Sanservera v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours, 859 F. Supp. 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
  • Sisco v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 10 F. 3d 739 (10th Cir. 1993)