NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 2216

_____________ J A M E S M C N A M A R A , A ppel l ant

v. KM AR T CO RP OR AT I ON

_____________ O n A pp eal from t he D i stri ctC ou rtof the V i rgi n Isl and s

( D . C . N o. 08- cv- 00018) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T i m othyJ . Savage

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay6, 2010 B e f o re : S M IT H , C H A G A R E S a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui t Judges . ( Fi l ed: M ay14, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . T h is a p p e a l ar ise s o u t o f a p p e llan t Ja m e s M c N a m a ra ’s p e rso n a l in ju rylaw su it agai ns tappel l ee K m artC orpor at i on ( “K m art ”) . M cN amar a’ s negl i gence cl ai m w as t r i ed t o a j ur yi n t he D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands of the U ni t ed St at es . I n acc or dance2

w i t h t he j ur yver di ct , t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed j udgm enti n favorof M cN amar a and agai ns tK m arti n t he amountof $72, 000. M cN amar a appe al s cert ai n evi dent i aryrul i ngs and request s a new t ri al on dam ages. B ecause w e w ri t e on l yfor the b enef i tof the part i es, w e as s um e fa m i l i ar i t yw i t h t he fa ct s of thi s ci vi l act i on and the pr ocee di ngs i n t he D i s tr i ct C o u rt . F o r t h e f

o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m . I . Backg r ound A . Fact ual B ackgr ound T he under l y i ng fac t s ar e s t r ai ght forw ar d. O n J anuary24, 2008, M cN amar a w as w al ki ng i ns i de a K m arts t or e i n Fr eder i cks t ed, St . C r oi x, w hen he s l i pped on fe ces . A s he sl i pp ed, he turned t o g rab onto som et hing t o p reventhim sel f from fal l i ng . In the co urse of gr abbi ng ont o a s t ack of papert ow el s , he tw i s t ed and i nj ur ed hi s back. H e then s ued K m art, all eg ing that it s n eg li g en ce p rox im atelyca u sed h is i n juri es. A fter a tri al, the ju ry found thatK m art ’ s negl i gence w as a s ubs t ant i al fac t ori n caus i ng M cN amar a’ s i nj ur i es a n d a w a rd e d h im $ 7 2 ,0 0 0 in d a m a g e s . B . E vi den t i ary R uli ngs T he j ur yt r i al began on M ar ch 16, 2009. I n advanc e of the tr i al , K m artfi l ed s e v e ra l m o tio n s in lim in e to p re c lu d e M c N a m a ra f ro m p re s e n tin g c e rt a in e v id e n c e a t tr ia l. R elev an t t o this ap p ea l, K m art argu ed that the testi m o n yan d rep o rt s o f M cN am ara ’s expert s D r . G aryJ ett , Susa n M cK enzi e, and R ober tJ ohns on s houl d al l be exc l uded under R ul es 702 and 403 of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence . D r . J et t , a phy s i atr i s t , w as offe r ed3

byM cN am ara as a t reat i ng ph y si ci an an d a m edical exp ert ; M cK enzie w as offered as a v o c a tio n a l r e h a b ilita tio n e x p e rt ; a n d J o h n s o n w a s o f f e re d a s a n e c o n o m ic e x p e rt . I n a w r i t t en or deri s s ued bef or e the tr i al , the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed K m art ’ s m ot i on to ex clud e the test im o n yo f D r. Jett . A t tri al, h o w ev er, th e D istri ct C o u rtruled that D r. J e t tc o u l d n o tt e s t i f

ya b o u tM c Na ma r a ’ s f

u tu r e n e e d s f

o rh o u s e k e e p i n g a n d h o me m ai nt enanc e s ervi ces and gr ab bar s nearhi s t oi l etand tub, expl ai ni ng thatther e w as no adequa t e founda t i on i n hi s r eportfors uch expe ns es . W i t h r egar d t o M cK enzi e and J ohns on, t he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed i n a s epar at e w r i t t en or derthatM cK enzi e w as perm i t t ed t o “opi ne on the ef

fec t s of the func t i onal di s abi l i t i es upon t he occ upat i onal oppor tuni t i es o f [ M cN am ara ], ” b u t w as n o t al low ed to “o p ine o n the c o st of [M cN am ara ’s] fu ture m edi cal and ps y chol ogi cal t r eatm ent ” or“on amount s of [M cN amar a’ s ] futur e l os s of inco m e a n d loss o f c ap ac ityto ea rn in co m e.” (A p p . at 22 1 . ) In the sam e o rde r, the C o u rt gr ant ed K m art ’ s m ot i on t o excl ude the t es t i m onyand opi ni on of J ohns on. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d id n o t p ro v id e e x p la n a tio n s f o r i ts ru lin g s a s to M c K e n z ie a n d J o h n s o n . T w o ot herevi dent i aryrul i ngs ar e al s o ati s s ue i n t hi s appea l . D ur i ng the tr i al , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr event ed M cN amar a fr om t es t i fy i ng thathe onl ycont i nued t o w or k outof economi c nec es s i t yand al s o pr event ed hi m fr om ent er i ng hi s i ncome t ax r eturns and pay s tubs i nt o evi dence . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notexpl ai n t he fi r s trul i ng, buts t at ed thatt he t ax r etur ns and pays tubs w oul d notbe al l ow ed i nt o evi dence beca us e theyw er e not re le v a n t to o r p ro b a tiv e o f M c N a m a ra ’s f

u tu re e a rn in g s .T h e D i s t r i c tC o u r te x e r c i s e d d i v e r s i t yj u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 2 . We 1 h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . B ya N o tice o f

W ith d ra w a l d a ted F e b ru a ry2 2 , 2 0 1 0 , M c N a m a ra w ith d re w a ll 2 ar gum ent s r el at ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fai l ur e t o conducthear i ngs pur s uantt o D au bert v. Mer r el lD ow P har m s . , I nc. , 5 0 9 U .S . 5 7 9 (1 9 9 3 ).

4 A ft ert he j udgm enti n favorof M cN amar a w as ent er ed, he fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of a p p e a l. I I . D i s cus s i on 1 O n ap p ea l, M cN am ara raises se v era l cha ll en g es to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ev iden ti ary ru lin g s. F irst, M c N a m a ra c o m p lain s th a t th e C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it pr event ed D r . J ettfr om t es t i fy i ng aboutM cN amar a’ s futur e medi cal , hom e mai nt enanc e, an d h o m e m o d ifi ca ti o n n ee d s (“li fe -ca re n ee d s”). Se co n d , h e a rgu es th at th e C o u rt ab u sed it s d iscreti o n w h en itex clud ed M cK en zie’s o p inion an d test im o n yab o u t his fu ture l i fe- car e nee ds , futur e l os ti ncome, and l os s of ca paci t yt o earn i ncome. T hi r d, he cont ends t hatt he C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on byexcl udi ng the t es t i m onyand opi ni on of Jo h n so n . F o u rth , h e a rg u e s th a t th e C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n w h e n it p ro h ib ited h im f ro m tes tify in g th a t h e c o n tin u e d to w o rk o u t o f e c o n o m ic n e c e ss ity . A n d f if th , h e a ss e rts t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hen i texcl uded hi s t ax r eturns and pay stub s. 2 W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs forabus e of di s cr et i on. McKenna v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 5 8 2 F .3 d 4 4 7 , 4 6 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); P i neda v. For d Mot orC o. , 520 F. 3d 237, 243 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . H er e, K m artfi l ed mot i ons i n l i m i ne t o have the opi ni ons5

and t es t i m onyof D r . J ett , M cK enzi e, and J ohns on excl uded underR ul es 702 and 403 of t he Feder al R ul es of Evi dence . R ul e 702 perm i t s expertt es t i m onyw hen “( 1) the t es t i m onyi s bas ed upon s uffi ci entfac t s ordat a, ( 2) the t es t i m onyi s the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods , and ( 3) the w i t nes s has appl i ed the pr i nci pl es and m ethods r el i abl yt o t he fa ct s of the ca s e. ” Fed. R . E vi d. 702. W e have obs erved that

“ R u le 7 0 2 h a s th re e m a jo r r e q u ir e m e n ts : ( 1 ) t h e p ro f f e re d w itn e s s m u s t b e a n e x p e rt , i.e ., m us tbe qual i fi ed; ( 2) t he expe r tm us tt es t i fyaboutm att er s r equi r i ng s ci ent i fi c, t echni cal ors peci al i zed know l edge; and ( 3) t he expe r t ’ s t es t i m onym us tas s i s tthe tr i erof fa ct . ” P i neda , 5 2 0 F .3 d a t 2 4 4 . “A trial ju d g e a c ts a s a g a tek e e p e r to e n su re th a t an ya n d a ll expertt es t i m onyorevi dence i s notonl yr el evant , butal s o r el i abl e. ” Id . at243 ( i nt ernal c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). F o r its p a rt, R u le 4 0 3 a llo w s a d istric t co u rt to e x c lu d e re lev a n t ev id e n c e “ if its pr obat i ve val ue i s s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed bythe dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of the i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng t he j ur y , orbycons i der at i ons of undue de l ay , w as t e of t i m e, o r ne ed less p rese n tat ion o f c u m u lat ive e v iden ce . ” F ed . R . E v id. 40 3 . “A tr ial jud g e’s d e c isio n to a d m it o r e x c lu d e e v id e n c e u n d e r [ R u le 4 0 3 ] m a yn o t b e re v e rse d u n les s it is arbi t r aryand i r r at i onal . ” McKenna , 582 F. 3d at461 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons o m itte d ).In th e a rgu m en t secti o n s o f h is briefs, M cN am ara d o es n o t spe cifyw h ich f u ture 3 m edi cal need the D i s t r i ctC our terr oneous l yexcl uded t es t i m onyon, buthi s openi ng br i ef c o u ld b e re a d to a rg u e th a t th e C o u rt e rre d b ye x c lu d in g D r. Je tt’s te stim o n ya s to M c N a m a ra ’s f

u tu re n e e d f

o r lu m b a r su rg e ry . (A p p e llan t’s B r. 7 , 1 6 .) If th a t is M cN amar a’ s ar gum ent , w e s ee no a bus e of di s cr et i on. Fi r s t , M cN amar a has not i dent i fi ed w her e i n t he r ecor d t he D i s t r i ctC our trul ed thatD r . J et tcoul d nott es t i fyabout M cN amar a’ s need f

orl um bars ur gery . Second, D r . J ettr efe r r ed M cN amar a t o an or t hopedi c s ur geon, D r . C has e, foreval uat i on, butM cN amar a appa r ent l yw i t hdr ew D r. C h ase as a w itn ess b ef o re tri al an d h as n o t dir ec ted u s to a n yreli ab le ba sis fo r D r. J e tt’ s d e te rm in a tio n th a t M c N a m a ra w o u ld re q u ir e lu m b a r s u rg e ry in th e f u tu re . 6 A . D r. Jet t ’s T

est i m ony A s To McN

am ara’s Fu t ure MedicalN eeds A ndFuture L i f e-C are N eeds A l t hough M cN amar a compl ai ns thatthe C our terr ed byexcl udi ng “al l t es t i m ony r el at ed t o [hi s ] futur e medi cal needs ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 37) , thatcont ent i on i s not su p p o rt ed b ythe re co rd. T h e D istri ct C o u rtall o w ed D r. Jettto testi fyab o u t M cN am ara ’s futur e medi cal needs , i ncl udi ng hi s futur e nee ds forphy s i cal ther apy , phy s i cal ther apy ev alua ti o n s, o rth o p ed ic ev alua ti o n s, p h y siatri cs e v alua ti o n s, m ed icati o n , an d fu ture di agnos t i c t es t i ng. D r . J ettpr ovi ded t es t i m onyas t o t he appr oxi m at e cos tforeac h tr e a tm e n t o r e v a lu a tio n a n d th e f re q u e n c yw ith w h ic h M c N a m a ra w o u ld n e e d th e m . T h u s , Dr . J e t twa s p e r mi t t e d t o t e s t i f ya b o u tM c Na ma r a ’ s f

u tu r e me d i c a l n e e d s , a n d we s ee no e r r ori n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on. 3 S ec o n d , M cN am ara arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred b yex clud ing D r. Jett ’s tes tim o n yre g a rd in g h is f u tu re life -c a re n e e d s. T h e D istric t C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t it re f u se d to a llo w D r. Je tt t o tes tifya s to th o se f u tu re n e e d s b e c a u se th e re w a s n o su p p o rt in hi s r epor tfors uch expe ns es . I n t he r epor t , D r . J et ts t at ed thatM cN amar a w oul d need a7

h o u s e k e e p e rf

o rf o u rh o u r s p e rwe e k f

o rth e n e x tt e n y e a r s o f

h i s l i f e , h e l p wi t h h o me m a in ten a n c e o n c e a m o n th f o r te n y e a rs, a n d th e in sta llatio n in h is h o m e o f g ra b b a rs in hi s tub and a r ai s ed t oi l ets eatw i t h gr ab bar s . T he r epor t , how ever , does nots t at e w hy thes e e x p en ses w ere n ec essa ryas a resu lto f M cN am ara ’s i n juri es. A lth o u g h M cN am ara a rg u e s th a t h is o w n trial te stim o n ye sta b lish e d th a t th e se e x p e n se s w e re n e c e ss a ry , h is t es t i m onydoes notobvi at e the r equi r ementi n R ul e 702 thatexpertopi ni ons be bas ed on s uffi ci entfac t s . T hus , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on byexcl udi ng the evi dence underR ul e 702 bas ed on i t s concl us i on thatthe r ecomm endat i ons w er e not a d e q u a te ly su p p o rt e d b yD r. J e tt’ s re p o rt e d m e d ic a l f in d in g s . B . McKenzi e’s O

pini on A ndT

est i m ony R ega rdi ngFuture Li f e-C are N eeds, Fut ur e Los s O

f I ncom e, A nd Loss O

f C apaci t y To E ar n I

ncom e M cN amar a ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on byl i m i t i ng the sco p e o f M cK en zie’s o p inion an d test im o n yw ith reg ard to M cN am ara ’s fu ture li fe -ca re n ee d s, fu ture loss o f in co m e, an d loss o f c ap ac ityto ea rn in co m e. T h e D istri ct C o u rt en tered the o rde r l im it ing M cK en zie’s testi m o n yaf ter th e p arti es f

u ll yb ri ef

ed K m art’s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude heropi ni on and t es t i m onyunderR ul es 702 and 403. I n the m o ti o n in li m ine, K m art argu ed that M cK en zie’s o p inion w ith reg ard to M cN am ara ’s futur e medi cal and l i fe- car e nee ds w as out s i de the s cope of herexpert i s e and thather c o n c lu sio n s a s to M c N a m a ra ’s lo ss o f in c o m e a n d lo ss o f

c a p a c ityto e a rn in c o m e w o u ld notbe us eful t o t he j ur y . A l t hough the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notexpl ai n i t s r eas ons for l i m i t i ng M cK enzi e’ s t es t i m onyt o heropi ni on “on the ef fec t s of the func t i onal di s abi l i t i es8

upon t he occ upat i onal oppor tuni t i es of [M cN amar a] , ” w e bel i eve i t s r eas oni ng i s appar ent f ro m th e re c o rd . Fi r s t , M cK enzi e’ s opi ni on and t es t i m onyas t o M cN amar a’ s futur e l i fe- car e nee ds w a s p ro p e rl ye x c lu d e d . T h a t p ro p o s e d te s tim o n yw a s b a s e d e n tir e ly o n D r. J e tt’ s re p o rt . B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatthos e as pect s of D r . J et t ’ s opi ni on w er e notbas ed o n su f f icie n t f a c ts, M c K e n z ie’ s te stim o n yo n th e sa m e su b jec ts w a s a lso n e c e ss a rily e x c lu d e d . T he C our tal s o act ed w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tpr ecl uded M cK enzi e fr om tes tify in g to th e “ a m o u n ts o f [ M c N a m a ra ’s] f

u tu re lo ss o f

in c o m e a n d lo ss o f

c a p a c ityto earn i ncome. ” ( A pp. at221. ) I m por t ant l y , M cK enzi e’ s r epor tdi d nots peci fythe amount o f M cN am ara ’s fu ture loss o f in co m e o r oth erw ise q u an ti fyh is l o ss o f c ap ac ityto ea rn i ncome. I ns t ead, M cK enzi e’ s r epor ts t at ed thatM cN amar a w or ked ata “s edent aryoffi ce j ob” and that“hi s j ob t as ks fi tw i t hi n [hi s ] phy s i cal l i m i t at i ons . ” ( A pp. at101. ) A nd, al t hough herr epor ts t at es t hatM cN amar a w as conce r ned abouthi s pr oduct i vi t y , i tdoes noti ndi cat e thathe w as unabl e t o per form hi s j ob as a r es ul tof the i nj ur i es . Fur t herm or e, M cK enzi e eva l uat ed M cN amar a’ s l os s of i ncome and w or k capa ci t yand found that

“ M c N a m a ra is n o t cu rre n tlye x p e rie n c in g lo st w a g e s. H e is c u rre n tlyw o rk in g w ith in h is phy s i cal r es t r i ct i ons and ther efor e, hopeful l ycan r emai n i n hi s hi gh pay i ng j ob w i t h the G overnm ent . ” ( A pp. at102. ) M cK enzi e’ s r epor tdi d noti ncl ude anyi nform at i on about o ther e m p loym en t op p o rtu n it ies th at m igh t be a v ail ab le t o so m eo n e w ith M cN am ara ’s9

sk ill s a n d lim itatio n s o r a b o u t th e re lev a n t lab o r m a rk e t. B e c a u se th e re w a s n o b a sis in h e rr e p o r tf

o ra n yo p i n i o n o n t h e a mo u n t s , i f a n y , o f M c Na ma r a ’ s f

u tu r e l o s s o f

i n c o me and l os s of ca paci t yt o earn i ncome, M cK enzi e’ s t es t i m onyon t hos e s ubj ect s w as pr oper l yexcl uded underR ul e 702. M cN amar a al s o ar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byexcl udi ng ot herevi dence he w ant ed t o offe rabouthi s futur e l os s of i ncome and l os s ori m pai r m entof ea r ni ng capa ci t y . T he r ecor d does nots uppor ts uch an a r gum ent . A ttr i al , M cN amar a t es t i fi ed t hatw or ki ng caus ed hi m addi t i onal pai n and thathe w as conce r ned aboutw hetherhe coul d cont i nue t o w or k and pr ovi de forhi s fami l y . D r . J et tt es t i fi ed thatM cN amar a had di ffi cul tyw or ki ng beca us e of the pai n he expe r i ence d aft ers i t t i ng forl engthyper i ods of t i m e. M cK enzie al so t est i fi ed as t o M cN am ara’ s phy si cal l i m i t at i on s and the effect tho se l i m i t at i ons w oul d have on hi s l aboroppor tuni t i es . D ur i ng herdi r ectexami nat i on, s he w as as ked i f M cN amar a’ s “abi l i t yt o getand obt ai n empl oym entchange d s i nce the acc i dent [. ] ” ( A pp. at510. ) She ans w er ed, “Y es . D efi ni t el y . W hen a pe r s on . . . s uch as M c N a m a ra h a s[ ] f

u n c tio n a l d isa b ili ties .. . itb a sic a llya f f e c ts th e ir a b ili tyto b e a b le to w a lk o u t in to th e lab o r m a rk e t an d in to a n o th e r jo b th a t .. . h e m ig h t h a v e b e e n a b le to per form pr i ort o t hi s i nj ur y . ” I d. T h u s, th e re c o rd sh o w s th a t M c N a m a ra w a s a llo w e d to pr es entevi dence as t o hi s futur e l os s of i ncome and l os s ori m pai r m entof ea r ni ng c a p a c ity, a n d , a c c o rd in g ly, w e f in d n o e rr o r.O n appea l , M cN amar a does notchal l enge the por t i on of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der 4 pr event i ng M cK enzi e fr om t es t i fy i ng as t o M cN amar a’ s futur e medi cal needs . W e thi nk i ti s cl eart hatM cK enzi e, a voca t i onal r ehabi l i t at i on expert , w as notqual i fi ed t o opi ne as to th e s e n e e d s . 10 C . Johns on’s E

xper tTes t i m ony And O

pi ni on N ext , M cN amar a ar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on byexcl udi ng t he opi ni on and t es t i m onyof R ober tJ ohns on. A gai n, w e di s agr ee. B efor e the D i s t r i ct C ou rt , K m artargued t hat J oh nson ’s t est i m on yshou l d b e excluded un der R ule 403 a s a w as t e of t i m e and unde rR ul e 702 as unhel pful t o t he j ury . I n hi s r epor t , J ohns on s um m ed up M cN amar a’ s futur e medi cal and non- m edi cal expens es , as r epor t ed byM cK enzi e, and c a lcu late d th e p re se n t v a lu e o f th o se e x p e n se s. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in pr ohi bi t i ng M cK enzi e fr om t es t i fy i ng aboutM cN amar a’ s futur e medi cal and non- m edi cal exp enses. B ecause M cK enzie w as not perm i tt ed to t est i fyabo ut these ex pen ses,

4 J o h n s o n ’s te s tim o n y , w h ic h w a s d e p e n d e n t o n M c K e n z ie ’s , w a s a ls o p ro p e rl ye x c lu d e d . D . E vi dence ThatMcN am ar a W orked D es

pi t e His P ai n A nd B ecaus e of E c o n o m ic N

e c e ss ity M cN amar a al s o ar gues t hatthe C our terr ed byexcl udi ng hi s t es t i m onythathe cont i nued t o w or k w hi l e i n pai n outof ec onom i c nec es s i t y . A l t hough the C our tdi d not e x p lain its d e c isio n to e x c lu d e th is te stim o n y , w e c o n c lu d e th a t, i f it w e re e rro r, itw o u ld c e rt a in ly b e h a rm le s s . S e e G re a t A m . In s. C o . v. N o rw in Sc h o o l D ist. , 544 F. 3d 229, 251 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (“ A n e rro n e o u s e v id e n tiary ru lin g w ill b e c o n sid e re d h a rm les s if it i s hi ghl ypr obabl e thatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s [rul i ng] di d notaff ect[the part y ’ s ] s ubs t ant i al11

r i ght s . ” ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) ) . D ur i ng the tr i al , M cN amar a w as perm i t t ed t o t es t i fyt hathe fr equent l yhad t o getup fr om hi s des k t o r el i eve hi s pai n and t hatw or ki ng exac erbat ed hi s back pa i n. I n t he cont extof hi s ans w er s on t he pai n he exper i ence d dur i ng w or k, he w as as ked i f he thoughtabout“s t oppi ng w or k. ” ( A pp. at 349. ) H e ans w er ed, “I f I coul d, I w oul d. ” Id . M c N a m a ra ’s a tto rn e yf u rth e r e x p lain e d h is t e s t i mo n yd u r i n g t h e c l o s i n g , s t a t i n g , “ He ’ s g o tth e wh i p o f e c o n o mi c n e c e s s i t y . He d o e sn ’t h a v e th e m o n e yn o t to b e a b le to w o rk .. . . [ Y ]o u h e a rd h im , if h e h a d th e a b ili ty n o t t o b e a b le t o w o rk, he w o u ld stop , b ec au se o f th e p ain.” (A p p . at 70 3 . ) G i ven M c N a m a ra ’s te stim o n ya n d h is c o u n se l’s s u b se q u e n t ar g u m e n t, a re a so n a b le ju ryw o u ld under s t and thatM cN amar a cont i nued t o w or k i n or dert o m ai nt ai n hi s i ncome. W e fi nd n o re v e rs ib le e rr o r. E . T ax R et urns A ndP ay S t ub s Fi nal l y , M cN amar a ar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bypr event i ng hi m fr om i nt r oduci ng hi s t ax r ecor ds and pays tubs i nt o evi dence . A gai n, i f thi s w er e err or , i tw as al s o harm l es s beca us e the j ur yw as r epea t edl yi nform ed of M cN amar a’ s s al arydur i ng t he trial. F irst, M c N a m a ra tes tifie d a t trial th a t h e w a s m a k in g $ 7 0 ,5 0 0 p e r y e a r o n th e d a te of the i nci dentatK m ar t . Second, M cK enzi e al s o t es t i fi ed aboutthe appr oxi m at e amount of M cN amar a’ s s al aryatt he t i m e of the ac ci dentand atthe t i m e of tr i al . T hi r d, M cN amar a’ s at t or neyi nform ed the j urydur i ng hercl os i ng ar gum entof the amountof M cN amar a’ s s al aryatt he t i m e of tr i al . T hus , the j uryw as ful l yaw ar e of the amountof12

M c N a m a ra ’s in c o m e , an d M c N a m a ra w a s n o t h a rm e d b yth e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to e x c lu d e th is e v id e n c e . I I I . C onc l us i on Fi ndi ng no err ori n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s evi dent i arydeci s i ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the o rd e r o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .