Houchins v. Soo Line R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | A19-0072 |
| Parties | Nicholas Houchins, Respondent, v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
Affirmed
Hennepin County District Court
Fredric A. Bremseth, David H. Stern, Bremseth Law Firm P.C., Minnetonka, Minnesota (for respondent)
Timothy R. Thornton, Kathryn M. Short, Tara R. Duginske, Briggs and Morgan P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Cortney G. Sylvester, Nilan Johnson Lewis, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Tracy M. Smith, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant challenges judgment in favor of respondent's Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) claims, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by (1) excluding collateral-source evidence; and (2) denying its motion for a new trial or conditional remittitur. We affirm.
This appeal involves respondent Nicholas Houchins's claims under FELA for injuries he allegedly sustained to his knees while employed by appellant Soo Line Railroad d/b/a Canadian Pacific (Soo Line). Prior to his employment with Soo Line, Houchins served as an infantryman in the United States Army, serving two tours of duty in Iraq. Houchins was honorably discharged from the army in December 2006, applied for Veterans Administration (VA) disability benefits, and began receiving disability benefits in January 2007. Two of the various conditions related to Houchins's disability benefits include a 10% disability rating for each knee due to "genu valgrum" strains to both knees. According to Houchins, $219.88 of his monthly benefits of $1,319 are related to his knees.
In July 2008, Houchins began working for Soo Line as a conductor. Prior to beginning his employment, Houchins was required to undergo a medical examination administered by a Soo Line doctor who tested, among other things, his knees. Houchins passed the initial medical examination, and later passed full medical examinations in 2009 and 2014. In October 2015, a Soo Line employee backed a vehicle into Houchins. An orthopedic surgeon opined that Houchins sustained a hyperextension injury due to the accident, and Houchins has not returned to work with Soo Line as a conductor.
In October 2016, Houchins sued Soo Line, asserting his FELA claims. Soo Line maintained that Houchins was seeking to recover for the same injury twice, and that his receipt of monthly disability benefits provided him an incentive not to return to work. SooLine therefore moved in limine to admit evidence that "Houchins receives [VA] benefits in part relating to bilateral knee issues." Houchins moved to exclude evidence about his disability benefits as collateral-source evidence. The district court denied Soo Line's motion in limine, "unless [Houchins] testifies or argues that he suffers financial distress due to his inability to work caused by his injury, or otherwise opens the door to the admissibility of such evidence." Soo Line stipulated to liability, and the case proceeded solely on the issue of damages. The jury awarded Houchins $2 million in damages. Soo Line moved for a new trial or a conditional remittitur. The court denied Soo Line's motions.
This appeal follows.
Minnesota appellate courts review a district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Doe v. Archdiocese of St. Paul, 817 N.W.2d 150, 164 (Minn. 2012). A district court abuses its discretion when "its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is inconsistent with the facts in the record." Hudson v. Trillium Staffing, 896 N.W.2d 536, 540 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted). An improper evidentiary ruling resulting in the erroneous admission of evidence will require a new trial only if it results in prejudice. George v. Estate of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1, 9 (Minn. 2006).
The supreme court has recognized that the collateral-source statute "sets forth a general rule barring collateral source evidence." Kroning v. State Farm Auto Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 42, 46 (Minn. 1997). "The collateral source rule provides in general that compensation received from a third party will not diminish recovery against a wrongdoer."Hubbard Broad., Inc. v. Loescher, 291 N.W.2d 216, 222 (Minn. 1980). The collateral-source rule is also applicable in FELA cases. See Eichel v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 375 U.S. 253, 255-56, 84 S. Ct. 316, 317 (1963) (); but see Moses v. Union Pac. R.R., 64 F.3d 413, 416 (8th Cir. 1995) ().
Soo Line argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding collateral-source evidence of Houchins's receipt of VA disability benefits because (1) the evidence should have been permitted to impeach Houchins; (2) the benefits related to a pre-existing injury; and (3) Houchins opened the door by complaining about poverty.
Generally, the "credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party." Minn. R. Evid. 607. And, under well-established law, "a witness who has testified to material facts in a case may be impeached by showing that he has previously made statements relating to those facts which are contrary to his present testimony." Carroll v. Pratt, 76 N.W.2d 693, 697 (Minn. 1956) (footnote omitted).
Houchins testified on direct examination that while he was in the army, his knees were "sore," but that he "never had any specific injury" to his knees. He testified that his job as a yard conductor was a "physical job" that required him to work outdoors, walkmultiple miles on uneven rock, climb ladders on the side of rail cars, and squat down to connect air hoses. He testified that he had no problems performing his job duties before the incident on October 17, 2015. He maintained that, since the accident, his knee bends the "wrong way," which has caused him to fall "multiple times"; he can no longer engage in physical recreation like he used to, such as, "go for a run; go play a full-court game of real basketball . . ."; play softball and participate in "mud runs"; and he can no longer play with his kids like he used to.
Soo Line claimed that Houchins's testimony was inconsistent with his VA medical records, which "established" that he has "service-connected disabilities [related to his knees] that are permanent partial problems that are going to last," and that he receives disability payments related to his knee problems. Soo Line argued that Houchins's testimony denying pre-existing knee injuries was inconsistent with the VA's award for knee-disability benefits, and that his testimony "opened the door by denying that he ever had a service-related condition or injury." The district court disagreed and concluded that although Houchins "opened the door about the extent of the injury," which would allow Soo Line to impeach with "documents available . . . that show that he was injured," he did not open the door to impeachment with evidence related to "payments or compensation or entitlement to compensation."
Soo Line argues that the district court should have allowed it to explore the alleged discrepancy between Houchins's testimony and the VA assessment of his knees, and that the court abused its discretion by concluding that admission of Houchins's VA disability benefits would violate the collateral-source rule. To support its argument, Soo Line citesKroning, which stated that "[t]he collateral source statute does not trump the Minnesota Rules of Evidence allowing impeachment." 567 N.W.2d at 47. But Kroning is not a FELA case. Moreover, in Kroning, while recognizing the general rule that bars collateral-source evidence, the supreme court held that the "exception" set forth in Minn. R. Evid. 607 allows for the impeachment of witnesses with the admission of evidence of collateral-source payments "when a plaintiff, through either the use of misleading statements or outright false statements, falsely conveys to the jury that he or she is destitute or in dire financial straits." Id. at 46-47. This holding is consistent with the holding in Moses that relates to FELA cases. 64 F.3d at 416.
Here, Houchins testified that while he was in the army, he never had a "specific injury" to his knees. He did not testify that he does not receive collateral-source benefits, nor did he claim emotional or financial distress due to lack of income. Houchins's testimony did not open the door to the admission of collateral-source evidence based on an exception discussed in Moses. Soo Line argues that Moses "does not hold that there are only 'two narrow exceptions' to the collateral source rule in FELA cases," and that "Minnesota courts have found collateral source evidence admissible in FELA actions beyond the alleged 'two narrow exceptions.'"
We acknowledge that the exceptions to the collateral-source rule may not be limited to the two exceptions discussed in Moses. For example, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed collateral-source evidence if the plaintiff opens the door, it is relevant to some other material issue in the case, its probative value is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and an immediate prophylactic instruction is given as to the limited usefor which it was admitted. Fitzgerald v. Expressway Sewerage Constr., Inc., 177 F.3d 71, 75-76 (1st Cir. 1999). But Soo Line presents no published Minnesota precedent to support its...
To continue reading
Request your trial