Solution Manual for Andersons Business Law and the Legal
Environment Standard Volume 23rd Edition Twomey
Jennings Greene
THE COURT SYSTEM AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
g; g; g; g; g;
RESTATEMENT
A g;court g;is g;a g;government-established g;tribunal g;created g;to g;hear g;and g;decide g;matters g;brought g;before g;it.
g ; Courts g;have g;specific g;types g;or g;classes g;of g;cases g ; assigned g;to g;them g ; and g;over g;which g;they g;have g;authority;
g;referred g;to g;as g;jurisdiction. g ; The g;types g;of g;jurisdiction g;include g;original g;jurisdiction g;which g;is g;the g;authority g;to
g;conduct g;the g;first g;proceedings g;in g;the g;case. g;Appellate g;jurisdiction g;is g;the g;authority g;to g;review g;the g;proceedings
g;of g;other g;courts. g ; Courts g;can g;have g;broad g;authority g;over g ; a g ; variety g;of g;cases, g ; or g;general g ; jurisdiction g;as
g ; with g ; a g ; trial g;court, g;or g;can g ; have g;special g ; or g;limited g ; jurisdiction g ; as g ; with g;juvenile g;or g;probate g;courts.
There g;are g;federal g;and g;state g;court g;systems. g ; The g;federal g;court g;system g;consists g;of g;specialty g;courts g;such
g;as g;tax g;court g;and g;bankruptcy g;courts, g;a g;general g;trial g;court g;called g;federal g;district g;court, g;the g;U.S. g;court g;of
g;appeals g;and g;the g;U.S. g;Supreme g;Court. g;State g;court g;systems g;have g;a g;general g;trial g;court, g;called g;a g;county,
g;circuit g;or g;superior g;court, g;an g;appellate g;court, g;and g;a g;state g;supreme g;court.
When g;a g;dispute g;is g;taken g;to g;court, g;it g;begins g;with g;a g;plaintiff g;filing g;a g;complaint. g ; The g;defendant g;answers g;the
g;complaint g;by g;denying g;the g;allegations g;or g;counterclaiming. g ; The g;parties g;may g;be g;represented g;by g;lawyers
g;who g;are g;officers g;of g;the g;court g;trained g;to g;represent g;others g;in g;the g;presentment g;of g;a g;case.
Following g;the g;pleadings g;in g;a g;case, g;the g;parties g;begin g;discovery g;whereby g;they g;determine g;the g;facts g;of g;the
g;case g;through g;depositions, g;requests g;for g;production g;and g;interrogatories.
Based g;on g;the g; evidence g;obtained g; during g;discovery, g;the g;parties g ; may g;move g;for g;summary g;judgment g ; which
g;is g; a g;decision g;in g;a g;case g;in g;which g;the g;facts g;are g;not g;in g;dispute.
A g;trial g;begins g;with g;voir g;dire, g;or g;the g;process g;of g;questioning g;jurors g;for g;bias g;or g;arbitrary g;exclusion g;through
g;the g;use g;of g;peremptory g;challenges. g ; The g;trial g;proceeds g;with g;opening g;statements g;and g;then g;the g;plaintiff's
g;case. g ; The g;order g;for g;questioning g;witnesses g;is g;direct, g;cross-, g;redirect, g;and g;recross-examination. g ; A g;directed
g;verdict g;can g;be g;granted g;if g;the g;plaintiff's g;proof g;was g;insufficient g;to g;establish g;the g;elements g;of g;the g;case.
g ; Following g;a g;jury g;verdict, g;the g;losing g;party g;can g;move g;for g;a g;judgment g;N.O.V. g;or g;a g;new g;trial. g ; The
g;collection g;of g;a g;judgment g;is g;obtained g;through g;execution g;on g;a g;writ g;of g;execution g;or g;garnishment.
Other g;methods, g;besides g;litigation, g;that g;can g;be g;used g;to g;settle g;disputes g;are g;called g;alternative g;dispute
g;resolution. g ; The g;methods g;of g;alternative g;dispute g;resolution g;include g;arbitration, g;mediation, g;medarb, g;reference
g;to g;third g;person, g;association g;tribunal, g;summary g;jury g;trial, g;rent-a-judge, g;minitrial, g;contract g;provisions g;and
g;ombudsmen. g ; These g;methods g;vary g;in g;formality g;but g;are g;all g;non-judicial g;means g;for g;dispute g;resolution.
STUDENT g;LEARNING g;OUTCOMES
,LO.1: Explain g;the g;federal g;and g;state g;court
systems. g;LO.2:
g; Describe g;court g;procedures.
g
;
LO.3: List g;the g;forms g;of g;alternative g;dispute g;resolution g;and g;distinguish g;among g;them.
INSTRUCTOR’S g;INSIGHTS
Break g;the g;chapter g;down g;into g;three g;components g;– g;related g;Learning g;Outcomes g;are g;indicated g;in g;( g;):
1. What g;are g;the g;court g;systems g;and g;names g;of g;the g;various g;courts? g;(LO.1)
• Cover g;the g;federal g;court g;system
• Explain g;generally g;how g;state g;court g;systems g;work
• Discuss g;the g;types g;of g;courts g;and g;their g;jurisdiction
,2. How g;does g;a g;case g;go g;through g;a g;court? g;(LO.2)
• List g;the g;parties g;involved g;in g;a g;court g;case
• Explain g;the g;initial g;steps g;in g;a g;law g;suit
• Describe g;how g;a g;trial g;proceeds
• Discuss g;the g;parties' g;options g;after g;a g;trial g;is g;finished
3. What g;are g;the g;alternatives g;to g;litigation g;for g;dispute g;resolution? g;(LO.3)
• Explain g;arbitration
• Discuss g;mediation
• Cover g;MedArb
• Define g;and g;discuss g;reference g;to g;a g;third g;person, g;association g;tribunals, g;summary g;jury g;trials, g;rent-a-
judge, g;mini- g;trial, g;contract g;provisions, g;and g;ombudsmen g;as g;alternative g;means g;of g;dispute g;resolution
CHAPTER g;OUTLINE
I. What g;are g;the g;Court g;Systems g;and g;Names g;of g;the g;Various g;Courts?
A. Types g;of g;courts
1. Subject g;matter g;jurisdiction g;– g;courts g;have g;authority g;based g;on g;type g;of g;case
2. Original g;jurisdiction g;– g;trial g;courts; g;where g;case g;is g;heard g;initially
3. General g;jurisdiction g;– g;authority g;of g;broad g;subject g;matter g;in g;cases
4. Limited g ; or g ; special g ; jurisdiction g ; – g; narrow g; scope g; of g; subject g; matter; g; e.g., g; probate,
g ; domestic g ; relations, g;juvenile g;courts
5. Appellate g;jurisdiction g;– g;court g;that g;reviews g;the g;work g;of g;other g;courts
a. Reversible g;error g;– g;mistake g;in g;lower g;court g;with g;the g;potential g;to g;affect g;the g;outcome
b. Court g;can g;affirm, g;reverse, g;or g;remand
CASE g;BRIEF: Stanford g;v. g;V.F. g;Jeanswear, g;LP
84 g;So.3d g;825 g;(Miss. g;App. g;2012)
FACTS: Mary g;Kay g;Stanford g;(Stanford) g;was g;driving g;a g;truck g;for g;V.F. g;in g;late g;evening g;of g;February g;7,
g;2006 g;when g;she g;began g;to g;feel g;nauseous. g ; She g;pulled g;into g;a g;truck g;scale g;house g;to g;rest
g;for g;the g;evening. g;She g ; parked g;the g;truck, g;and g;as g;she g;attempted g;to g;climb g;into g;the g;sleeper
g;compartment, g;she g;tripped g;over g;a g;cooler. g;Stanford g;fell g;into g;the g;sleeper g;compartment g;and
g;hit g;her g;head g;on g;the g;bed g;rail; g;the g;fall g;knocked g;her g;unconscious. g;Stanford's g;husband,
g;William g;Stanford, g;who g;was g;riding g;with g;her, g;attempted g;to g ; revive g;her. g;After g;she g;regained
g;consciousness, g;William g;offered g;to g;take g;her g;to g;the g; emergency g;room. g;Stanford g;declined g;and
g;decided g;to g;stay g;in g;the g;sleeper g;compartment g;and g;rest g;until g;morning. g;Stanford g;contacted
g;V.F. g;dispatch g;and g;made g;the g;notifications g;to g;the g;company g;about g;her g;injury. g;The g;company
g;arranged g;for g;the g;two g;to g;return g;home.
On g;February g;8, g;2006, g;Stanford g;went g;to g;Dr. g;Allie g;Prater g;for g;an g;evaluation g;of g;her g;injuries.
g;Dr. g;Prater's g;notes g;reflect g;that g;Stanford's g;chief g;complaints g;were g;blackouts, g;syncope, g;and
g;slurred g;speech. g ; Stanford g;told g;Dr. g;Prater g;that g;her g;symptoms g;had g;begun g;one g;week g;prior
g;to g;her g;visit. g;Dr. g;Prater's g;notes g;do g;not g;mention g;Stanford's g;fall g;in g;the g;truck g;or g;that g;she
g;was g;knocked g;unconscious. g;Dr. g;Prater g;diagnosed g;Stanford g;with g;benign g;essential
g;hypertension g;and g;ordered g;blood g;tests, g;an g;ultrasound, g;and g;a g;brain g;MRI.
Upon g;receiving g;the g;test g;results, g;Dr. g;Prater g;referred g;Stanford g;to g;Dr. g;Glenn g;Crosby, g;a
g;neurosurgeon. g;Before g;seeing g;Dr. g;Crosby, g;Stanford g;presented g;to g;Dr. g;Johnny g;Mitias, g;an
g;orthopedic g;surgeon, g;on g;March g;15, g ; 2006. g ; There g ; was g ; no g ; mention g ; of g ; her g ; fall g ; in
g ; Dr. g ; Mitias’s g ; notes. g ; In g ; fact, g ; he g ; noted g ; that g;“[t]here g;was g;no g;injury g;that g;started
g;this.” g;Dr. g;Mitias g;diagnosed g;Stanford g;with g;right g;sciatica g;and g;ordered g ; physical g;therapy.
On g ; March g ; 31, g ; 2006, g; Dr. g; Crosby g; diagnosed g; Stanford g; with g; symptomatic g; cervical
g ; spondylosis g ; with
, osteophyte g;complex g;and g;ordered g;physical g;therapy. g;The g;physical g;therapy g;aggravated
g;Stanford's g;symptoms, g;so g;Dr. g;Crosby g;recommended g;a g;cervical g;diskectomy g;and g;fusion g;at
g;C3–4. g;Dr. g;Crosby g;performed g;the g;recommended g;surgeries g;on g;August g;8, g;2006. g;After
g;surgery, g;Stanford g;began g;complaining g;of g;pain g;in g;her g;left g;buttock g;and g;down g;her g;left g;leg. g;Dr.
g;Crosby g;ordered g;a g;lumbar g;MRI, g;which g;revealed g;a g;large g; rupture g;of g;the g;lumbar g;spine g;at g;L4.
g;On g;November g;28, g;2006, g;Dr. g;Crosby g;performed g;a g;diskectomy g;at g;the g;L4 g;level.
Dr. g;Crosby's g;notes g;indicate g;that g;Stanford g;“had g;a g;fall g;this g;past g;year” g;that g;may g;have
g;aggravated g;her g;back. g;However, g;Dr. g;Crosby's g;notes g;do g;not g;mention g;that g;Stanford g;suffered
g;a g;fall g;at g;work g;until g;her g;follow-up g;visit g;with g;Dr. g;Crosby g;on g;May g;30, g;2008. g;Dr. g;Crosby
g;testified g;in g;his g;deposition g;that g;prior g;to g;that g;visit, g;Stanford g;had g;not g;disclosed g;any g;history g;of
g;an g;accident g;at g;work. g;However, g;he g;testified g;that g;the g;problems g;with g;her g;neck g;and g;back
g;were g;probably g;related g;to g;her g;work g;injury.
A g;hearing g;was g;held g;before g;an g;administrative g;judge g;(AJ), g;who g;denied g;Stanford's g;claim g;for
g;workers' g;compensation g;benefits. g;Stanford g;appealed g;the g;AJ's g;decision g;to g;the g;Commission,
g;which g;affirmed g;the g;AJ's g;decision. g;Stanford g;appealed g;the g;Commission's g;decision g;to g;the
g;Circuit g;Court g;of g;Union g;County, g;and g;the g;circuit g;court g;affirmed g;the g;Commission's g;decision
g;denying g;benefits. g;Stanford g;then g;appealed.
ISSUE: Was g;the g;admission g;of g;the g;evidence g;about g;the g;cruise g;and g;horseback g;riding g;and g;hairy
g; chest g;contest g;prejudicial g;and g;a g;basis g;for g;reversible g;error?
HOLDING: No,
REASONING: g ; g ; The g ; evidence g ; was g ; damaging g ; to g ; Stanford’s g ; case g ; but g ; was g ; not g ; prejudicial
g; particularly g ; given g ; that g ; the g;AJ g;let g;in g;all g;sorts g;of g;evidence g;for g;Stanford g;from g;family g;and
g;friends. g ; The g;court g;affirmed g;the g;denial g;of g;workers’ g;compensation g;benefits g;because g;the
g;evidence g;indicated g;clearly g;that g;Stanford g;did g;not g;tell g;the g;doctors g;about g;her g;work g;injury.
g ; The g;testimony g;about g;the g;cruise g;and g;the g;videos g;of g; horseback g;riding g;were g;damaging g;to
g;Stanford’s g;case, g;but g;they g;did g;not g;indicate g;bias g;particularly g;because g;the g;AJ g;had g;allowed
g;evidence g;from g;Stanford’s g;husband, g;friends, g;and g;relatives g;about g;her g;condition. g ; Because
g;evidence g;is g;damaging g;to g;one g;party g;does g;not g;mean g;that g;it g;should g;not g;be g;admitted.
B. Federal g;court g;system g;(See g;Figure g;2-1)
1. Federal g;district g;court g;(See g;Figure g;2-2 g;in g;text)
a. Trial g;court
b. General g;jurisdiction
i. U.S. g;is g;a g;party
ii. Cases g;between g;citizens g;of g;different g;states g;($75,000 g;or g;more)
iii. Cases g;arising g;under g;U.S. g;Constitution g;or g;statute
c. Each g;state g;is g;at g;least g;one g;federal g;district
d. Specialty g;courts
i. Limited g;jurisdiction
ii. Bankruptcy, g;tax, g;Indian g;tribal g;court
2. U.S. g;Court g;of g;Appeals
a. Twelve g;geographic g;circuits g;(districts g;grouped g;together) g;plus g;one g;additional g;circuit
b. One g;court g;of g;appeals g; per g;circuit
c. Three-judge g;panel g;reviews g;cases
3. U.S. g;Supreme g;Court
a. Appellate g;jurisdiction
i. U.S. g;Courts g;of g;Appeals
ii. State g;supreme g;courts g; when g;constitutional g;issue g;is g;involved
b. Review g;is g; granted g;pursuant g;to g;writ g;of g;certiorari g;process
c. Trial g;court g;for g;ambassadors, g;public g;ministers, g;consuls g;and g;state g;vs. g;state
Environment Standard Volume 23rd Edition Twomey
Jennings Greene
THE COURT SYSTEM AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
g; g; g; g; g;
RESTATEMENT
A g;court g;is g;a g;government-established g;tribunal g;created g;to g;hear g;and g;decide g;matters g;brought g;before g;it.
g ; Courts g;have g;specific g;types g;or g;classes g;of g;cases g ; assigned g;to g;them g ; and g;over g;which g;they g;have g;authority;
g;referred g;to g;as g;jurisdiction. g ; The g;types g;of g;jurisdiction g;include g;original g;jurisdiction g;which g;is g;the g;authority g;to
g;conduct g;the g;first g;proceedings g;in g;the g;case. g;Appellate g;jurisdiction g;is g;the g;authority g;to g;review g;the g;proceedings
g;of g;other g;courts. g ; Courts g;can g;have g;broad g;authority g;over g ; a g ; variety g;of g;cases, g ; or g;general g ; jurisdiction g;as
g ; with g ; a g ; trial g;court, g;or g;can g ; have g;special g ; or g;limited g ; jurisdiction g ; as g ; with g;juvenile g;or g;probate g;courts.
There g;are g;federal g;and g;state g;court g;systems. g ; The g;federal g;court g;system g;consists g;of g;specialty g;courts g;such
g;as g;tax g;court g;and g;bankruptcy g;courts, g;a g;general g;trial g;court g;called g;federal g;district g;court, g;the g;U.S. g;court g;of
g;appeals g;and g;the g;U.S. g;Supreme g;Court. g;State g;court g;systems g;have g;a g;general g;trial g;court, g;called g;a g;county,
g;circuit g;or g;superior g;court, g;an g;appellate g;court, g;and g;a g;state g;supreme g;court.
When g;a g;dispute g;is g;taken g;to g;court, g;it g;begins g;with g;a g;plaintiff g;filing g;a g;complaint. g ; The g;defendant g;answers g;the
g;complaint g;by g;denying g;the g;allegations g;or g;counterclaiming. g ; The g;parties g;may g;be g;represented g;by g;lawyers
g;who g;are g;officers g;of g;the g;court g;trained g;to g;represent g;others g;in g;the g;presentment g;of g;a g;case.
Following g;the g;pleadings g;in g;a g;case, g;the g;parties g;begin g;discovery g;whereby g;they g;determine g;the g;facts g;of g;the
g;case g;through g;depositions, g;requests g;for g;production g;and g;interrogatories.
Based g;on g;the g; evidence g;obtained g; during g;discovery, g;the g;parties g ; may g;move g;for g;summary g;judgment g ; which
g;is g; a g;decision g;in g;a g;case g;in g;which g;the g;facts g;are g;not g;in g;dispute.
A g;trial g;begins g;with g;voir g;dire, g;or g;the g;process g;of g;questioning g;jurors g;for g;bias g;or g;arbitrary g;exclusion g;through
g;the g;use g;of g;peremptory g;challenges. g ; The g;trial g;proceeds g;with g;opening g;statements g;and g;then g;the g;plaintiff's
g;case. g ; The g;order g;for g;questioning g;witnesses g;is g;direct, g;cross-, g;redirect, g;and g;recross-examination. g ; A g;directed
g;verdict g;can g;be g;granted g;if g;the g;plaintiff's g;proof g;was g;insufficient g;to g;establish g;the g;elements g;of g;the g;case.
g ; Following g;a g;jury g;verdict, g;the g;losing g;party g;can g;move g;for g;a g;judgment g;N.O.V. g;or g;a g;new g;trial. g ; The
g;collection g;of g;a g;judgment g;is g;obtained g;through g;execution g;on g;a g;writ g;of g;execution g;or g;garnishment.
Other g;methods, g;besides g;litigation, g;that g;can g;be g;used g;to g;settle g;disputes g;are g;called g;alternative g;dispute
g;resolution. g ; The g;methods g;of g;alternative g;dispute g;resolution g;include g;arbitration, g;mediation, g;medarb, g;reference
g;to g;third g;person, g;association g;tribunal, g;summary g;jury g;trial, g;rent-a-judge, g;minitrial, g;contract g;provisions g;and
g;ombudsmen. g ; These g;methods g;vary g;in g;formality g;but g;are g;all g;non-judicial g;means g;for g;dispute g;resolution.
STUDENT g;LEARNING g;OUTCOMES
,LO.1: Explain g;the g;federal g;and g;state g;court
systems. g;LO.2:
g; Describe g;court g;procedures.
g
;
LO.3: List g;the g;forms g;of g;alternative g;dispute g;resolution g;and g;distinguish g;among g;them.
INSTRUCTOR’S g;INSIGHTS
Break g;the g;chapter g;down g;into g;three g;components g;– g;related g;Learning g;Outcomes g;are g;indicated g;in g;( g;):
1. What g;are g;the g;court g;systems g;and g;names g;of g;the g;various g;courts? g;(LO.1)
• Cover g;the g;federal g;court g;system
• Explain g;generally g;how g;state g;court g;systems g;work
• Discuss g;the g;types g;of g;courts g;and g;their g;jurisdiction
,2. How g;does g;a g;case g;go g;through g;a g;court? g;(LO.2)
• List g;the g;parties g;involved g;in g;a g;court g;case
• Explain g;the g;initial g;steps g;in g;a g;law g;suit
• Describe g;how g;a g;trial g;proceeds
• Discuss g;the g;parties' g;options g;after g;a g;trial g;is g;finished
3. What g;are g;the g;alternatives g;to g;litigation g;for g;dispute g;resolution? g;(LO.3)
• Explain g;arbitration
• Discuss g;mediation
• Cover g;MedArb
• Define g;and g;discuss g;reference g;to g;a g;third g;person, g;association g;tribunals, g;summary g;jury g;trials, g;rent-a-
judge, g;mini- g;trial, g;contract g;provisions, g;and g;ombudsmen g;as g;alternative g;means g;of g;dispute g;resolution
CHAPTER g;OUTLINE
I. What g;are g;the g;Court g;Systems g;and g;Names g;of g;the g;Various g;Courts?
A. Types g;of g;courts
1. Subject g;matter g;jurisdiction g;– g;courts g;have g;authority g;based g;on g;type g;of g;case
2. Original g;jurisdiction g;– g;trial g;courts; g;where g;case g;is g;heard g;initially
3. General g;jurisdiction g;– g;authority g;of g;broad g;subject g;matter g;in g;cases
4. Limited g ; or g ; special g ; jurisdiction g ; – g; narrow g; scope g; of g; subject g; matter; g; e.g., g; probate,
g ; domestic g ; relations, g;juvenile g;courts
5. Appellate g;jurisdiction g;– g;court g;that g;reviews g;the g;work g;of g;other g;courts
a. Reversible g;error g;– g;mistake g;in g;lower g;court g;with g;the g;potential g;to g;affect g;the g;outcome
b. Court g;can g;affirm, g;reverse, g;or g;remand
CASE g;BRIEF: Stanford g;v. g;V.F. g;Jeanswear, g;LP
84 g;So.3d g;825 g;(Miss. g;App. g;2012)
FACTS: Mary g;Kay g;Stanford g;(Stanford) g;was g;driving g;a g;truck g;for g;V.F. g;in g;late g;evening g;of g;February g;7,
g;2006 g;when g;she g;began g;to g;feel g;nauseous. g ; She g;pulled g;into g;a g;truck g;scale g;house g;to g;rest
g;for g;the g;evening. g;She g ; parked g;the g;truck, g;and g;as g;she g;attempted g;to g;climb g;into g;the g;sleeper
g;compartment, g;she g;tripped g;over g;a g;cooler. g;Stanford g;fell g;into g;the g;sleeper g;compartment g;and
g;hit g;her g;head g;on g;the g;bed g;rail; g;the g;fall g;knocked g;her g;unconscious. g;Stanford's g;husband,
g;William g;Stanford, g;who g;was g;riding g;with g;her, g;attempted g;to g ; revive g;her. g;After g;she g;regained
g;consciousness, g;William g;offered g;to g;take g;her g;to g;the g; emergency g;room. g;Stanford g;declined g;and
g;decided g;to g;stay g;in g;the g;sleeper g;compartment g;and g;rest g;until g;morning. g;Stanford g;contacted
g;V.F. g;dispatch g;and g;made g;the g;notifications g;to g;the g;company g;about g;her g;injury. g;The g;company
g;arranged g;for g;the g;two g;to g;return g;home.
On g;February g;8, g;2006, g;Stanford g;went g;to g;Dr. g;Allie g;Prater g;for g;an g;evaluation g;of g;her g;injuries.
g;Dr. g;Prater's g;notes g;reflect g;that g;Stanford's g;chief g;complaints g;were g;blackouts, g;syncope, g;and
g;slurred g;speech. g ; Stanford g;told g;Dr. g;Prater g;that g;her g;symptoms g;had g;begun g;one g;week g;prior
g;to g;her g;visit. g;Dr. g;Prater's g;notes g;do g;not g;mention g;Stanford's g;fall g;in g;the g;truck g;or g;that g;she
g;was g;knocked g;unconscious. g;Dr. g;Prater g;diagnosed g;Stanford g;with g;benign g;essential
g;hypertension g;and g;ordered g;blood g;tests, g;an g;ultrasound, g;and g;a g;brain g;MRI.
Upon g;receiving g;the g;test g;results, g;Dr. g;Prater g;referred g;Stanford g;to g;Dr. g;Glenn g;Crosby, g;a
g;neurosurgeon. g;Before g;seeing g;Dr. g;Crosby, g;Stanford g;presented g;to g;Dr. g;Johnny g;Mitias, g;an
g;orthopedic g;surgeon, g;on g;March g;15, g ; 2006. g ; There g ; was g ; no g ; mention g ; of g ; her g ; fall g ; in
g ; Dr. g ; Mitias’s g ; notes. g ; In g ; fact, g ; he g ; noted g ; that g;“[t]here g;was g;no g;injury g;that g;started
g;this.” g;Dr. g;Mitias g;diagnosed g;Stanford g;with g;right g;sciatica g;and g;ordered g ; physical g;therapy.
On g ; March g ; 31, g ; 2006, g; Dr. g; Crosby g; diagnosed g; Stanford g; with g; symptomatic g; cervical
g ; spondylosis g ; with
, osteophyte g;complex g;and g;ordered g;physical g;therapy. g;The g;physical g;therapy g;aggravated
g;Stanford's g;symptoms, g;so g;Dr. g;Crosby g;recommended g;a g;cervical g;diskectomy g;and g;fusion g;at
g;C3–4. g;Dr. g;Crosby g;performed g;the g;recommended g;surgeries g;on g;August g;8, g;2006. g;After
g;surgery, g;Stanford g;began g;complaining g;of g;pain g;in g;her g;left g;buttock g;and g;down g;her g;left g;leg. g;Dr.
g;Crosby g;ordered g;a g;lumbar g;MRI, g;which g;revealed g;a g;large g; rupture g;of g;the g;lumbar g;spine g;at g;L4.
g;On g;November g;28, g;2006, g;Dr. g;Crosby g;performed g;a g;diskectomy g;at g;the g;L4 g;level.
Dr. g;Crosby's g;notes g;indicate g;that g;Stanford g;“had g;a g;fall g;this g;past g;year” g;that g;may g;have
g;aggravated g;her g;back. g;However, g;Dr. g;Crosby's g;notes g;do g;not g;mention g;that g;Stanford g;suffered
g;a g;fall g;at g;work g;until g;her g;follow-up g;visit g;with g;Dr. g;Crosby g;on g;May g;30, g;2008. g;Dr. g;Crosby
g;testified g;in g;his g;deposition g;that g;prior g;to g;that g;visit, g;Stanford g;had g;not g;disclosed g;any g;history g;of
g;an g;accident g;at g;work. g;However, g;he g;testified g;that g;the g;problems g;with g;her g;neck g;and g;back
g;were g;probably g;related g;to g;her g;work g;injury.
A g;hearing g;was g;held g;before g;an g;administrative g;judge g;(AJ), g;who g;denied g;Stanford's g;claim g;for
g;workers' g;compensation g;benefits. g;Stanford g;appealed g;the g;AJ's g;decision g;to g;the g;Commission,
g;which g;affirmed g;the g;AJ's g;decision. g;Stanford g;appealed g;the g;Commission's g;decision g;to g;the
g;Circuit g;Court g;of g;Union g;County, g;and g;the g;circuit g;court g;affirmed g;the g;Commission's g;decision
g;denying g;benefits. g;Stanford g;then g;appealed.
ISSUE: Was g;the g;admission g;of g;the g;evidence g;about g;the g;cruise g;and g;horseback g;riding g;and g;hairy
g; chest g;contest g;prejudicial g;and g;a g;basis g;for g;reversible g;error?
HOLDING: No,
REASONING: g ; g ; The g ; evidence g ; was g ; damaging g ; to g ; Stanford’s g ; case g ; but g ; was g ; not g ; prejudicial
g; particularly g ; given g ; that g ; the g;AJ g;let g;in g;all g;sorts g;of g;evidence g;for g;Stanford g;from g;family g;and
g;friends. g ; The g;court g;affirmed g;the g;denial g;of g;workers’ g;compensation g;benefits g;because g;the
g;evidence g;indicated g;clearly g;that g;Stanford g;did g;not g;tell g;the g;doctors g;about g;her g;work g;injury.
g ; The g;testimony g;about g;the g;cruise g;and g;the g;videos g;of g; horseback g;riding g;were g;damaging g;to
g;Stanford’s g;case, g;but g;they g;did g;not g;indicate g;bias g;particularly g;because g;the g;AJ g;had g;allowed
g;evidence g;from g;Stanford’s g;husband, g;friends, g;and g;relatives g;about g;her g;condition. g ; Because
g;evidence g;is g;damaging g;to g;one g;party g;does g;not g;mean g;that g;it g;should g;not g;be g;admitted.
B. Federal g;court g;system g;(See g;Figure g;2-1)
1. Federal g;district g;court g;(See g;Figure g;2-2 g;in g;text)
a. Trial g;court
b. General g;jurisdiction
i. U.S. g;is g;a g;party
ii. Cases g;between g;citizens g;of g;different g;states g;($75,000 g;or g;more)
iii. Cases g;arising g;under g;U.S. g;Constitution g;or g;statute
c. Each g;state g;is g;at g;least g;one g;federal g;district
d. Specialty g;courts
i. Limited g;jurisdiction
ii. Bankruptcy, g;tax, g;Indian g;tribal g;court
2. U.S. g;Court g;of g;Appeals
a. Twelve g;geographic g;circuits g;(districts g;grouped g;together) g;plus g;one g;additional g;circuit
b. One g;court g;of g;appeals g; per g;circuit
c. Three-judge g;panel g;reviews g;cases
3. U.S. g;Supreme g;Court
a. Appellate g;jurisdiction
i. U.S. g;Courts g;of g;Appeals
ii. State g;supreme g;courts g; when g;constitutional g;issue g;is g;involved
b. Review g;is g; granted g;pursuant g;to g;writ g;of g;certiorari g;process
c. Trial g;court g;for g;ambassadors, g;public g;ministers, g;consuls g;and g;state g;vs. g;state
