Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

7th Circuit OKs dismissal of suit for 'appalling' litigation conduct

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the dismissal of an employee's suit against his former employer for injuries he sustained to his back was an appropriate sanction for the employee's misconduct throughout the case.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Negrete v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), No. 07-3287 (7th Cir. 10/27/08).

What it means: Dismissal of an employee's suit against his former employer for work-related injuries is an appropriate sanction where the employee repeatedly and willfully misses discovery deadlines, tampers with and hides evidence, withholds important information regarding his ability to work, and misrepresents his income.

Summary: A former track-repair worker for Amtrak claimed that a work-related back injury left him permanently disabled and unable to work. The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois dismissed his lawsuit against Amtrak on the grounds that the worker had "intentionally flouted discovery deadlines, hidden and tampered with evidence, and lied in his deposition." The 7th Circuit found that dismissal of the suit was an appropriate sanction under the circumstances. The worker's alleged misconduct, which the 7th Circuit described as "appalling," included withholding names of physicians who had treated his injury, tampering with medical evidence, grossly understating rental income he received, misrepresenting his physical abilities, and missing 21 discovery deadlines. In response to the worker's allegation that he was uneducated, the 7th Circuit stated "it does not take a graduate degree to understand that it is unacceptable to hide evidence and lie in a deposition."

December 16, 2008

Copyright 2008© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.