Opinion ID: 157142
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of IBP’s Workers’ Compensation Goals

Text: and Accident-Free Incentive Programs. Although we are remanding the case for a new trial due to erroneous admission of the hearsay evidence, we will discuss other claims of error because those questions may be presented again at the new trial. IBP argues that the district court erred in admitting evidence of IBP’s “cost per injury” goals and accident-free incentive programs because the evidence was irrelevant. We review the admission of this evidence for abuse of discretion. Quitana, -9- 70 F.3d at 1170. We agree with the district court that the evidence satisfied the test for relevance pursuant to Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 5 The “cost per injury” program and the accident-free incentive program are circumstantial evidence relevant to IBP’s motivation to discourage the reporting of injuries and/or reduce the cost of injuries. See Hill v. IBP, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 521, 525 (D. Kan. 1995). We are not convinced that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence.