| Volume 15 Number 9 | Fall 2002 |
| CIVIL PRACTICE RULE CHANGES As reported in the GRSLL&B Spring 2002 newsletter, the NJ Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee made various proposals for rule changes. Having considered the report and recommendations of the committee, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered amendments to various court rules, effective September 3, 2002. As expected, given the court s history of following committee recommendations, the amendments substantially reflect the changes proposed by the committee. The following are the more significant rule changes: R.1:7-1(b) Opening and Closing Statement The rule has been changed to reflect that in closing argument it is actually "argument," and not merely ‘argumentative," for the jury apply the "time-unit rule to calculate unliquidated damages. Such amendment further cements the acceptability of asking a jury to use an arbitrary dollar rate per unit of time to calculate damages. R.1:8-8 Juror Questions In light of positive results from a pilot program, the committee submitted a proposal for allowing juror questions of witnesses. The rule change now permits, at the trial judge s discretion, jurors to present written questions for the judge to ask of witnesses during trial. Questions would be submitted at the close of each witness testimony, and a hearing held on the record, and outside the presence of the jury, to determine any objections to the admissibility of the questions and whether the witness should be recalled to answer the questions. While jurors may appreciate the opportunity to get information not elicited or sought by counsel, attorneys may find their intended presentation of the case disrupted. However, counsel would be permitted to reopen direct and cross-examination to respond to the jurors questions and the witness answers thereto. Further, juror questions may give counsel insight into jurors thinking during the course of the trial. In any event, the rule change makes jury selection even more important. continued on page 3
|
AN ATTEMPT AT LIMITING DEFENSE EXPERTS IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION In Yves A. Pierre-Louis v. R&L Sheet Metal Co., a petitioner alleged occupational exposure to pulmonary irritants. The respondent denied this claim as not arising out of and in the course of employment. Petitioner became very ill and his de bene esse deposition was taken. Petitioner than passed away about a year later. Petitioner s wife then filed a dependency claim on behalf of herself and her five children under Marie Pierre-Louis v. R&L Sheet Metal Co. Prior to the trial of the life time claim and the dependency claim, petitioner s counsel filed a motion to preclude respondent s expert testimony under N.J.S.A. 34:15-64. N.J.S.A. 34:15-64 allows the Workers Compensation Judge to award witness fees, attorneys fees and other costs. This includes fees for physicians for their testimony and depositions. Petitioner s counsel contended that this statute should apply to petitioner s and respondent s medical witnesses alike to prevent experts from testifying that they would charge higher rates than those permitted by the statute. The Workers Compensation Judge opined that the custom in Workers Compensation is to only apply this statute to petitioner s experts. The statute does not apply to respondent s experts but does apply to petitioner s experts to avoid petitioner incurring a large expense for his or her witness testimony. This in turn allows indigent petitioners the opportunity to pursue their workers compensation trial. The Court further indicated that even if the statute applied to respondents and petitioners, the Court does not have the power to prevent an expert from testifying solely based upon the amount he or she charges for that testimony. Petitioner s attorney was also seeking a Daubert-like hearing. Daubert deals with the qualifications of experts and the relevancy of their testimony. As the judge indicated, the court continued on page 2 |