Expert Witness Blog
In a recent federal case, the role and reliability of a Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness were central to the determination of damages in a personal injury action. The case, Kinnerson v. Arena Offshore L P et al, involved a plaintiff who sustained significant injuries while being transferred by crane in a personnel basket, which violently struck a railing. The plaintiff retained Glenn Hebert, a Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness, to assess and testify regarding his post-injury earning capacity and vocational limitations.
Background and Parties
The plaintiff, an offshore worker, alleged that the incident resulted in lasting physical impairment, severely restricting his ability to return to his prior occupation. The defendants, Arena Offshore L P and related parties, contested both liability and the extent of damages, focusing particularly on the admissibility and methodology of the expert’s vocational assessment.
Expert’s Role and Methods
Glenn Hebert was engaged to provide an expert opinion on the plaintiff’s pre- and post-injury earning capacity. Hebert’s analysis involved comparing the plaintiff’s actual earnings as a Level II tester with the projected earnings of a Level III tester. Hebert justified this approach by referencing “Chapter 6 of A Guide to Rehabilitation,” which states that individuals under age 30 at the onset of disability have not yet reached their full earning capacity. Thus, Hebert argued that the plaintiff’s loss should be measured by his potential future earnings rather than his actual pre-injury wages.
Hebert’s report incorporated data from professional treatises and government sources, aiming to establish a credible foundation for his wage loss calculations. He explained his methodology in detail, citing relevant literature and statistical data to support his conclusions regarding vocational limitations and economic damages.
Daubert and Reliability Analysis
The defendants moved to exclude Hebert’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, challenging both the factual basis and the reliability of his methods. They argued that Hebert failed to explain how he arrived at his conclusions regarding pre-injury earning capacity, relied on unverifiable website information, and neglected to review the plaintiff’s IRS and Social Security earnings records. Additionally, the defense contended that Hebert did not follow the four-step wage loss determination method established in case law.
The court conducted a thorough Daubert analysis, evaluating whether Hebert’s testimony was grounded in sufficient facts and reliable principles. The court found that Hebert’s reliance on authoritative treatises and government data provided a substantial factual basis for his opinions. While the defense criticized the expert’s choice of comparator earnings and alleged methodological gaps, the court determined that Hebert had adequately explained his reasoning and cited factually substantial sources.
Impact on Case Outcome
The court denied the defendants’ motion to exclude Hebert’s expert report, allowing his testimony to be presented at trial. The court emphasized that Hebert’s opinions were supported by recognized professional standards and relevant data, and that any disputes regarding the weight or credibility of his conclusions could be addressed through cross-examination.
By upholding the admissibility of the Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness testimony, the court ensured that the jury would have the benefit of expert analysis in assessing the plaintiff’s vocational limitations and economic damages. This decision underscores the importance of transparent methodology and authoritative sourcing in vocational expert testimony, particularly in cases involving complex wage loss and rehabilitation issues.
For further details, see Kinnerson v. Arena Offshore L P et al, W.D. La. 2019.