UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-60661
Summary Calendar
JUDY L. HARLOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
WAL-MART STORES, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(1:96-CV-218-SA)
April 8, 1998
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On June 27, 1996, Judy L. Harlow and John D. Harlow
(hereinafter "Harlow") instituted the present suit by filing a
complaint in the Circuit Court of Itawamba County, Mississippi,
against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter "Wal-Mart") alleging
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
that "on or about July 1, 1993" Judy Harlow sustained an injury
while on the premises of a Wal-Mart Store in Fulton, Mississippi,
when a large box of merchandise fell off a pallet and struck her in
the back and leg. At the time of that injury, Judy Harlow was
employed by Bassett Furniture Company, running a zipper machine and
showing cushions. Following her injury, Judy Harlow attempted to
return to work at Bassett Furniture, but she was unable to do her
former job of running the zipper machine without excruciating pain.
Wal-Mart removed the case from the state court in Mississippi to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi and filed its answer. The parties consented to trial
before a United States Magistrate Judge. In August 1997, Wal-Mart
moved in limine to exclude evidence of a determination by an
administrative law judge of the Social Security Administration that
Judy Harlow was disabled as set forth in a decision from the Social
Security Administration awarding her disability benefits which had
been handed down prior to this lawsuit. The district court granted
the motion in limine and made specific findings on the record that
the basis for the ruling was Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence. After trial before a jury, judgment was entered in favor
of Judy Harlow in the amount of $30,000. Harlow then filed a
motion for new trial alleging as error the trial court’s exclusion
of the Social Security decision; and the trial court denied the
motion for new trial. Harlow appeals to this Court the amount of
damages awarded in her jury trial "solely on the ground that the
lower court erred in excluding the Social Security decision."
2
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and
the reply brief. We accord the trial judge broad discretion in
ruling on questions relating to the admissibility of evidence and
we find nothing in this record to support a conclusion that the
trial judge abused his discretion in denying admissibility of the
Social Security determination under Rule 403. Accordingly, the
Final Judgment entered in this case on August 19, 1997, is
AFFIRMED.
3