Mark McCown v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied Norfolk Southern Railway Company’s motion to exclude calculations from Plaintiff Mark McCown’s economist, Dr. Robert McLeod. The court held that alleged mathematical errors had been corrected and that challenges to the economist’s methodologies, fringe-benefit calculations, and life-care-plan inputs principally concerned credibility and cross-examination rather than admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court permitted renewal of objections to specific costs before or during trial.

Holdings

1. The court denied Defendant's motion to exclude because McLeod was qualified, his testimony was relevant, and his methodology was sufficiently reliable; alleged weaknesses in the calculations were matters for cross-examination rather than grounds for wholesale exclusion.
2. McLeod's methodology for calculating future lost fringe benefits was not shown to be unreliable merely because it used a percentage-of-earnings approach, relied on historical benefits data, or differed from methodologies proposed by Defendant.
3. The court would not consider McLeod's initial mathematical errors as a basis for excluding his reports because the errors had been corrected through supplemental reports and Defendant clarified that it did not seek exclusion on that ground.
4. Defendant's challenge to McLeod's reliance on Dr. Christopher Sellars's medical projections was moot because the court had denied Defendant's separate motion to exclude Sellars's testimony.
5. McLeod could include pretrial damages consisting of medical expenses actually incurred, and could include the future cost of treatments previously declined unless Plaintiff stated that he would not consider the treatment in the future. Testimony based on hypothetical pretrial treatment that Plaintiff did not receive would be excluded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dr. Robert McLeod's economic-damages opinions and calculations were sufficiently reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert to be admissible.
2. Whether McLeod's methodology for calculating lost fringe benefits was unreliable because it used historical benefits data, earnings percentages, and alternative tax assumptions.
3. Whether McLeod's life-care-plan economic calculations were inadmissible because they relied on projected medical costs, included pretrial expenses, or included treatments Plaintiff had previously declined.

Disposition

other