Waldorf v. Shuta
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
142 F.3d 601 (1998)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Mark Waldorf (plaintiff) became a quadriplegic because of injuries he sustained in a car accident. During his personal-injury action, one of the defendants offered the expert testimony of Dennis Rizzo on the subject of vocational rehabilitation and the jobs available for a quadriplegic. Rizzo did not have any formal training in the field. Rizzo had a master’s degree in sociology and social organization and spent much of his early career working in a field unrelated to vocational rehabilitation. In recent years, however, Rizzo worked to evaluate employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities, and as part of his job, he became familiar with studies on work quadriplegics can perform. Rizzo also used the New Jersey Department of Labor Statistics and the New Jersey Job Listing Book regarding employment opportunities in various job categories in the state. Over Waldorf’s objection, the court qualified Rizzo as an expert witness. During Rizzo’s testimony, he used the New Jersey Department of Labor Statistics and the New Jersey Job Listing Book. Following a judgment in his favor, Waldorf moved for a new trial on the basis of the court’s qualification of Rizzo as an expert witness, among other things.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Greenberg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.