Prater v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• admitting ergonomics expert testimony where proffered expert based his conclusions on an onsite analysis of the workplace and “pertinent research”
• “[T]he jury must compute plaintiffs lost wages on an after-, rather than a pre-tax basis.”
• “[Plaintiffs] receipt of RRB benefits ... cannot be offset against plaintiffs lost wages under Eichel ”
• “As a treating physician, Dr. Reveal can give and explain his diagnosis of the plaintiff’s 23 condition and his view of its cause.”
• “Testimony that circumstances may give rise to a certain result differs from testimony that those circumstances gave rise to that result, That testimony is relevant and admissible, while leaving for the jury the ultimate question of causation in the particular case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).