Over hearsay objections by defense counsel, the district court admitted Margaret Shirley's testimony that she had seen notations on her husband's paychecks indicating de- ductions for his STRS pension. Plaintiffs' counsel stipu- lated to this testimony but not to its admissibility. He elected to receive less each month in pension benefits so that his wife would be assured of some income after his death. In effect, his insurance premiums were deducted each month from his pension payment. . . . Consequently, the court will not include the STRS payments received by Margaret Shirley in de- termining economic loss.
Defendants appeal the district court's decision on two grounds.
We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal according to 28 U.S.C. sec. The district court applied its interpretation of the In- diana collateral source evidence statute to the facts. We review for clear error a district court's application of law to fact. But this case demonstrates the sometimes murky distinc- tion between interpretation of law and application of law to fact. The district court could apply only its understand- ing of the Indiana statute.