James Hutcherson, Jr. v. Chae Lim, No. 13-1619 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1619 JAMES N. HUTCHERSON, JR.; SHARON T. HUTCHERSON, as wife of James N. Hutcherson, Jr., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CHAE Y. LIM, individually and in his professional/employment capacity, Defendant Appellee, and WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, d/b/a WMATA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-03044-RWT) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: October 9, 2014 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anitha Johnson, ODELUGO & JOHNSON, LLC, Lanham, Maryland, for Appellants. Gerard J. Stief, Chief Counsel, Kathryn Pett, General Counsel, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James N. Hutcherson, Jr., appeals the district court s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) motion for a new trial. On appeal, Hutcherson argues that the district court erred in admitting certain documentary evidence and that the jury s award is inconsistent with its verdict on liability. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Hutcherson erred in admitting contained hearsay. first a contends final that medical the district evaluation court because it We review a trial court s rulings on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion, and . . . will only overturn an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational. United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will not, however, set aside or reverse a judgment on the grounds that evidence was erroneously admitted unless justice so requires or a party s substantial rights are affected. Creekmore v. Maryview Hosp., 662 F.3d 686, 693 (4th Cir. 2011). Assuming, without deciding, that the district court erred in admitting the medical evaluation, we conclude that the court s actions did not affect Hutcherson s substantial rights. In light of the testimonial evidence offered at trial, we conclude that the contents of the evaluation report were not so 3 prejudicial that the document s admission affected the outcome of the trial. Second, Hutcherson contends that the jury s award of zero damages is inconsistent with its verdict on liability. He argues that, contrary to the district court s finding, he did not waive this claim by failing to object to the verdict before the jury was discharged. did waive his We conclude, however, that Hutcherson objection to any alleged inconsistencies by failing to object to the general verdict prior to the jury s discharge. See White v. Celotex Corp., 878 F.2d 144, 146 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1989) (distinguishing special and general verdicts and holding that failure to object to purported inconsistencies in a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b) general verdict form prior to jury s discharge constitutes waiver of right to seek a new trial on that basis); see also Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715, 725-27 (4th Cir. 1999) (concluding that district court properly denied motion for entry of judgment under Rule 49(b) because defendant did not object to alleged inconsistencies in general verdict prior to jury s discharge). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse motion. Rubber its discretion in denying Hutcherson s Rule 59(a) See Tire Eng g & Distrib., LLC v. Shandong Linglong Co., 682 F.3d standard of review). 292, 313 (4th Cir. 2012) (providing We therefore affirm the district court s 4 order. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
