In a closely watched case, a Federal Appeals Court has reversed a decision from a lower court, which threw out an expert’s opinion because the court said it was unreliable. The case, Seamon v. Remington Arms Company, LLC, is a tragic case surrounding the mysterious death of the plaintiff’s husband who was shot by his own Remington Model 700 rifle. The decedent, Mr. Seamon, went deer hunting and when he didn’t return, his family went looking for him and found him dead in his elevated tree stand with a single gunshot wound to his chest. Mr. Seamon’s Remington Model 700 rifle was found on the ground thirteen feet below attached to a rope that wrapped around the rifle’s scope and safety. The safety mechanism was off and there was a spent cartridge in the chamber, but there was no gunshot residue on Mr. Seamon’s body or clothing, leading law enforcement to conclude that the rifle was at least five to ten feet away from Mr. Seamon when it fired. Moreover, Mr. Seamon’s left hand was clenched around the front rail of the tree stand and his right hand was positioned as if he had been grasping something. The obvious question was how was Mr. Seamon shot?
Mrs. Seamon, the plaintiff, alleged that her husband died when the rifle accidently discharged because of defects with the trigger system. The Remington Model 700 contains the Walker fire control system, which is different than other trigger systems in that even a very slight movement of one of the parts allows the rifle to fire accidently. According to Ms. Seamon’s expert, Mr. Powell, rifles with Walker triggers have fired unexpectedly a number of times in testing reported by Remington Arms. According to Mr. Powell, little things like dirt, corrosion deposits, moisture, firing deposits and manufacturing residue can prevent the trigger parts from engaging correctly, making the rifle subject to unexpected firing. During testing, Mr. Powell found particles and deposits in the fire control housing, which he said have been show to cause interference in the Walker system and cause rifles to fire without interaction with the trigger. Mr. Powell concluded that the rifle might have gone off unexpectedly when it came into contact with the tree, rope or the ground.
The trial court struck Mr. Powell’s opinion as to why the Remington Model 700 discharged, because it said that his opinion was “speculative” and therefore, unreliable, and dismissed Ms. Seamon’s lawsuit against Remington. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and reinstated the case. The appellate court concluded that Mr. Powell had provided sufficient factual support for his opinion and that the trial court had “manifestly erred by mischaracterizing Powell’s opinion and the evidence supporting it . . . .”
Seamon v. Remington Arms Company, LLC demonstrates once again how complicated the law can be, and how important it is to have on your side experienced and knowledgeable legal representation like the lawyers at Oxner + Permar ,PLLC. If you find yourself with a complicated legal question, call us and take advantage of our decades of legal experience. You will be glad you did!
In handling workers’ comp cases, we have found that company doctors may downplay the severity of accidents that occur at work. Injured workers come to attorneys complaining of problems that continue to hurt weeks after the incident. Or worse, they are concerned because they received an icepack and a band-aid from the company doctor when it’s clear that they should have been taken to the emergency room — by ambulance. What can be done and who’s to blame? Doctors report to others up the corporate ladder and profits can be more important than employee well-being. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) keeps track of reported safety concerns and incidents. Doctors and staff are under pressure to keep any concerns quiet to avoid fines for safety violations. The Whistleblower Protection Program gives rights to employees who notify OSHA of any concerns. The US Government Accountability Office has urged quicker audits and more worker interviews when concerns are reported — and also reviews at random intervals to help combat inaccurate corporate injury reporting.
Yes. And they do. All the time. They didn’t use to be allowed to do that, but very very often they did anyway. Successful lobbying with Gov. McCrory and the political leaders in the legislature lead to a huge change in the law. Now employers can talk to your doctor but are not required to tell you immediately that the conversation occurred or what the details of the conversation were.
Is this necessarily bad? While we doubt that doctors are engaged in conniving with adjusters we don’t really understand what all the secrecy is about. The old law required the adjuster or employer to write to the doctor but to let the injured worker see the letter before it went out so that they could ask for anything to be added. That seemed really fair. Why did insurance adjusters and employers want this changed? It doesn’t seem to be an exaggeration to say they must have had a motive if they were going to lobby the government to change that requirement. So it’s fair to say that they specifically want to be able to communicate with the doctor.
One of the laws that Gov. McCrory enacted prohibited the Industrial Commission from forcing an employer to decide to accept or deny the claim within a month of having actual written knowledge of the claim. Thus the adjuster has thirty days within which to hold back on all payment without any repercussions against her whatsoever. It is our observation from speaking with a lot of claimants with modest injuries that they are sorely tempted to give up their claim and beg the doctor to return them to full duty because they cannot afford to go a whole month without pay. While some adjusters may dispute the insinuation that this is a goal of theirs, the fact that it occurs is beyond dispute.
If you do not have a note from a doctor taking you out of work, and if the doctor wasn’t one the adjuster or the employer sent you to, then you can be assured that the checks are going to be a little slower getting started. And if you have a note returning you to work but you haven’t gone back because it hurts too much – without another out-of-work note from the doctor it’s going to be difficult. It can be done but it often requires an attorney’s help in doing so.
They can and they will. It makes no sense to us but it is legal for private investigators to follow you and film you. Why this isn’t stalking is beyond our understanding. Some insurance companies such as Stonewood use private investigators in a very large percentage of their cases. We should note that Stonewood has repeatedly complained that we say this and have, through their attorneys, suggested that they would file ethics charges against us if we didn’t stop. Yet even some of those attorneys admit that what we are saying is true.
The law is that a private investigator is not supposed to trespass, nor are they supposed to be peering into your windows after dark, tapping into your phone lines, or placing a tracking device on your vehicles. We’ve heard numerous stories of investigators violating all of those rules.
