Opinion ID: 1379033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Distinguishing Eichel

Text: In the place of Ladley, which decided the issue in this jurisdiction, the majority relies on Eichel v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 375 U.S. 253, 84 S.Ct. 316, 11 L.Ed.2d 307 (1963) to support a rule of strict and absolute exclusion even where the evidence is relevant. Yet Eichel considered the situation where, on the issue of malingering, there will generally be other evidence having more probative value and involving less likelihood of prejudice than the receipt of a disability pension. Id. at 255, 84 S.Ct. at 317. According to the court, Eichel suffered a permanently disabling injury, id. at 253, 84 S.Ct. at 316, which I assume makes reference to a physical impairment capable of objective ascertainment beyond the subjective vagaries of psychological opinion. Here, however, Mr. Johnson's claim ultimately rests upon the credibility which a mental health care professional and/or the jury attributes to his statements. Even if we were to consider Eichel as a statement of a categorical rule, we need not follow it as most state courts have not. The lead annotation on the subject notes Eichel has been rejected as [m]ost courts, however, have refused to adopt such an inflexible exclusionary rule and have instead chosen to regard the admissibility of collateral source benefits evidence for the purpose of establishing malingering, as being a matter at least to some extent within the discretion of the trial judge. William H. Danne, Jr., supra, 47 A.L.R.3d at 239-40. For example, the Connecticut high court declined to follow the alleged inflexible rule in Eichel noting: Eichel has been limited, however, to the federal statutory scheme of the Railroad Retirement Act. Gurliacci, 590 A.2d at 929 n. 23. [4] Even federal courts limit Eichel to the peculiar statute there at issue. For example, in DeMedeiros v. Koehring Co . the First Circuit allowed evidence of collateral benefits to show worker's motivation not to return to work and limited the applicability of Eichel, explaining: [T]his circuit has refused to extend the holding in Eichel beyond its federal statutory context. DeMedeiros v. Koehring Co., 709 F.2d 734, 741 (1st Cir.1983). As noted, Washington likewise rejected the Eichel approach as evidenced by Ladley, decided by this court five years after Eichel. Ladley, 73 Wash.2d at 934, 442 P.2d 983 (collateral benefits admissible to show motivation to return to work).