• Decrease 

font size
  • Reset 

font size to default
  • Increase 

font size
HOT NEWS
Home Jones Act Federal Circuits’ & State Decisions 3rd Circuit Aulette Andries v Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Please note all new Case Laws will be posted to OffshoreInjuries.com

JonesActQuestions.com registered users will be transferred as well.

PDF Print E-mail
Share
Jones Act Federal Circuits' & State Decisions - 3rd Circuit
Tuesday, 16 June 2009 15:30
Case Name: Aulette Andries v Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 13th May 2009
Court: District Court of Appeal - Florida - 3rd District
Judge: District Judge Salter
Citation: 2009 WL 1310987 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.)

Background:  The appellant, Aulette Andries, appealed an adverse final summary judgment on her Jones Act and maintenance and cure claims. Andries had filed suit against the appellee, Royal Caribbean Cruises ("Royal Caribbean").

Andries alleged that her staphylococcus infection was incorrectly treated by medical staff aboard her ship and that this resulted in an incurable kidney disease known as "immunoglobulin A nephropathy" ("IgA nephropathy"). 

The lower court granted summary judgment for Royal Caribbean because it found Andries' experts' testimony on the alleged causation too novel and investigational to be admissible.  Andries appealed.

Issue: Whether the lower court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Royal Caribbean.

Held:
The Court considered the nature of the expert opinions offered by Andries in this case. Her first expert witness was a physician specializing in nephrology, the treatment of kidney disease. The witness had 20 years of experience and personally reviewed the records relating to Andries's medical care.

The second expert witness was a physician and professor of medicine. This expert had practiced medicine for over 40 years, was a specialist in immunological kidney disease, and had authored numerous peer-reviewed research papers on nephropathy.

This Court concluded the experts were unquestionably qualified physicians, specializing in the areas of kidney disease and IgA nephropathy. Their opinions were forceful and constituted a need for a further detailed scientific investigation. Thus, this Court reversed and remanded.

Comments:

An expert witness is someone, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person. Their information is legally sufficient to be relied upon in court.

Often courts will want expert witnesses to prove causation. The goal is for witnesses to have concrete evidence of causation, instead of merely hypothetical guesses as to causation.

Steve Gordon
http://www.offshoreinjuries.com

Comments
Search RSS
Only registered users can write comments!

!joomlacomment 4.0 Copyright (C) 2009 Compojoom.com . All rights reserved."

Last Updated on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 01:30
 

Share it!

Translate This Site

English Arabic Bulgarian Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch Finnish French German Greek Hindi Italian Japanese Korean Norwegian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Spanish Swedish Catalan Filipino Hebrew Indonesian Latvian Lithuanian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Ukrainian Vietnamese Albanian Estonian Galician Hungarian Maltese Thai Turkish