Evidence of workers' compensation benefits barred where it would prejudice plaintiff's case

Law Reporter, Oct 2003

EVIDENCE

Nowlin v. Miller Elec. Mfg. Co., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. Civ.A. 02-993, 2003 WL 21664707 (E.D. La. July 11, 2003).

A U.S. district court held that evidence that a plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits is barred where it would prejudice a plaintiff's case.

Here, Nowlin was injured by an electrical shock while using a welding machine at work. He sued the machine manufacturer, alleging the machine was unreasonably dangerous because its switch was not enclosed, which could have prevented electrical arcing and his injury. Plaintiff's employer intervened to recover compensation payments. During discovery, the parties found that plaintiff's employer had removed the switch on the machine following the incident.

Under the collateral source rule, plaintiff moved to exclude from evidence any reference to the fact that he received workers' compensation benefits. Asserting that this evidence is admissible because it suggests that the employer discarded the switch to support its position as intervenor, defendant moved for an adverse inference instruction based on spoliation of evidence.

The court noted that the collateral source rule prohibits evidence that a personal injury plaintiff has received collateral benefits. The rule is designed to prevent juries from being improperly influenced in their determination of damages. Evidence of collateral payments is admissible for the limited purpose of proving another matter only if there is little likelihood of prejudice to a plaintiff's case.

To determine whether any potential prejudice would result, the court analyzed defendant's request for an adverse inference instruction. A charge for spoliation of evidence requires a showing that a party acted in bad faith. Here, defendant asserts that a coworker, at the employer's instruction, removed a switch from the machine at issue. An inference of bad faith based on these facts, the court found, is too great an analytical leap to make. The evidence suggests that the employer was unaware plaintiff was considering filing suit at the time the switch was removed. The court rejected defendant's argument that the employer should have kept the switch because it was aware it would be paying workers' compensation. The switch, the court explained, was not necessary in determining whether plaintiff was eligible for compensation benefits.

The court further noted that an adverse inference instruction would prejudice plaintiff's case because there is no evidence plaintiff was involved in removing the switch. The mere fact that plaintiff and the employer may be aligned in some way does not support a finding that the employer's actions prejudice the case, especially when no showing of bad faith has been made.

Accordingly, the court granted plaintiff's motion to exclude evidence of workers' compensation payments.

Plaintiff's Counsel

* Richard Guidry, Baton Rouge, La.

*John W. deGravelles, Baton Rouge, La.