Opinion ID: 165204
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Richard Wihera

Text: 36 We agree with defendant's argument that the district judge's decision to admit the expert testimony of Dr. Wihera should be reviewed for plain error. McKenzie specifically objected to Dr. Wihera's qualifications during his testimony. V App. 757. On appeal, McKenzie raises an argument concerning whether Dr. Wihera's testimony was relevant. Brief of Appellant at 47-48. Because McKenzie did not timely object to the relevance of Dr. Wihera's testimony, we review for plain error only. 37 In civil cases, [t]he `plain error' exception ... has been limited to errors which seriously affect `the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' McEwen v. City of Norman, Okla., 926 F.2d 1539, 1545 (10th Cir.1991) (quoting Karns v. Emerson Elec. Co., 817 F.2d 1452, 1460 (10th Cir.1987)). The miscarriage of justice must be patently erroneous and prejudicial. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd on other grounds; 472 U.S. 585, 105 S.Ct. 2847, 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985). 38 The district judge did not commit plain error by allowing Dr. Wihera to testify as an expert. He is an expert in law enforcement qualification standards who has performed about 15,000 to 20,000 pre-employment evaluations concerning law enforcement personnel qualifications. V App. 754. He has worked for agencies in about 15 different states and has done extensive work with Wyoming law enforcement agencies, including the Natrona County Sheriff's Department. Id. Drawing on this experience, Dr. Wihera testified that the sheriff's department acted in a reasonable manner in not pursuing [McKenzie's] application based upon the behaviors she had displayed in the past. Id. at 761. We agree with the defendant that this testimony is particularly relevant because it assisted the trier of fact to understand or determine ( Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786) the factual question of whether McKenzie was a qualified person with a disability. The ADA states: 39 A qualified individual with a disability. The term qualified individual with a disability means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position as such individual holds or desires. 40 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). 41 We note that McKenzie had an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Wihera before the jury. Black v. M & W Gear Co., 269 F.3d 1220, 1231 (10th Cir.2001) (holding no plain error existed in admission of expert testimony and noting that appellant cross-examined the expert). Additionally, McKenzie was permitted to voir dire Dr. Wihera before the jury in order to reveal any questions about his qualifications. V App. 757-60. 42 We agree with the defendant that the district court did not err when it allowed Dr. Wihera to testify as an expert. We hold that there was no error which affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings, McEwen, 926 F.2d at 1545 (citations and quotation marks omitted). In sum it does not appear that the district judge made any error in admitting Dr. Wihera's testimony.