What standard governs admissibility of medical testimony about future surgery in FELA cases? Dalebout v. Union Pacific Railroad Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the critical evidentiary standard for medical testimony regarding future medical treatment in Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) cases in Dalebout v. Union Pacific Railroad Company.

Background and Facts

Mark Dalebout, a Union Pacific engineer, was injured when a defective locomotive seat dropped three or four inches as he tried to open a window. The incident exacerbated pre-existing degenerative disc disease, causing chronic back and leg pain. Dr. Bryan testified that Dalebout had a thirty-percent chance of needing future back surgery and that surgery would prevent him from continuing as an engineer. The jury awarded substantial damages including $275,000 for future impairment of earning capacity and $200,000 for future pain and suffering.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Dr. Bryan’s testimony about a thirty-percent chance of future surgery was admissible under FELA standards. Union Pacific argued the testimony showed only possibility rather than probability, making it inadmissible and potentially tainting the jury’s substantial damage awards.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court established that FELA plaintiffs may recover damages for results they will “probably suffer in the future,” requiring testimony regarding future medical treatment to show “a probability rather than a possibility.” The court defined this standard as requiring evidence that the future event will more likely than not occur—a greater than fifty percent chance. Since thirty percent falls below this threshold, Dr. Bryan’s testimony was inadmissible as it raised only a possibility, not a probability, of future surgery.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes a clear fifty-percent threshold for medical testimony about future treatment in FELA cases. Practitioners must ensure expert witnesses can testify that future medical interventions are “more likely than not” to occur. The court remanded for retrial on damages without the inadmissible testimony, demonstrating that such evidentiary errors can substantially affect jury awards. The decision also reinforced FELA’s preference for jury determination of factual issues, noting that directed verdicts and judgments notwithstanding the verdict are rare in FELA cases.