Plaintiff John Thomas McReynolds, Jr. asserted claims for breach of contract and bad-faith delay arising from Defendant’s handling of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits under a Group Personal Excess Liability Policy issued by Vault.
Defendant Vault E&S Insurance Company filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s vocational expert, Allison Shipp Berry.
Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Witness
Allison E. Shipp Berry has substantial education and experience in vocational assessment, work-capacity analysis, labor-market access, and earning-capacity evaluation. Her credentials include advanced degrees in rehabilitation counseling and an MBA, as well as certifications in rehabilitation counseling and life-care planning.
Discussion by the Court
Berry plainly possessed specialized knowledge concerning vocational impairment and diminished earning capacity. The Court rejected Defendant’s broad contention that Berry is wholly unqualified to testify in this case.
The more difficult question concerned the scope and reliability of the specific opinions she proposed to offer.
Vocational Impairment and Diminished Earning Capacity
The Court first addressed Berry’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s vocational impairment and diminished earning capacity arising from an asserted occupational change following the accident.
Berry reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records, interviewed Plaintiff regarding his post-accident functional limitations, reviewed certain financial materials, and utilized vocational resources and labor-market tools commonly employed in her field, including occupational classification and wage data.
She further opined that Plaintiff could no longer perform the interventional pain-management work that allegedly constituted a significant component of his pre-accident practice and instead transitioned into a more sedentary supervisory or medical-director role. Plaintiff himself testified that he could no longer perform interventional pain-management procedures at the same level after the accident and that he pursued the Baptist Hospital arrangement after recognizing he could no longer continue his prior work in the same manner. Berry’s opinions concerning occupational change and diminished work capacity are therefore not untethered abstractions. The Court concluded that Plaintiff has carried his burden under Rule 702.
Defendant correctly observed that Berry selected particular occupational codes and wage data that may be subject to challenge. The fact that Defendant believed that Berry selected imperfect comparators did not establish that she employed no identifiable methodology at all.
Defendant also emphasized that Plaintiff continued receiving a $240,000 salary both before and after the accident. But Berry expressly testified that her earning-capacity analysis was not intended as a reconstruction of Plaintiff’s historical W-2 compensation; rather, it was intended to estimate the difference in vocational earning capacity between Plaintiff’s pre-injury work and his post-injury occupational role. Whether that distinction is persuasive is a matter for the jury. The Court cannot conclude that Berry’s testimony on this issue is so disconnected from accepted vocational analysis as to require exclusion.
Lack of Specialized Training or Experience in Forensic Accounting
Although Plaintiff attempted to characterize Berry exclusively as a vocational expert offering vocational opinions, the reports themselves demonstrate that Berry went further. In both her 2023 and 2025 reports, Berry analyzed the financial performance of McReynolds Anesthesia, P.A., compared pre- and post-accident income figures, and calculated alleged annual income losses for the practice.
The Court concluded that Plaintiff has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Berry is qualified or that her methodology is sufficiently reliable. Berry is not a CPA, economist, or business-valuation expert.
Berry’s business-income calculations were based largely upon a comparison of profit-and-loss statements from selected periods before and after the accident. Yet she admittedly did not review tax returns for either Plaintiff or the medical practice, did not verify the underlying financial data, and did not meaningfully analyze alternative economic causes affecting the practice’s revenue.
Berry’s methodology assumed that any reduction in the practice’s income was attributable to the accident while failing to account for an acknowledged and substantial change in the business model of the practice itself. Rule 702 requires more than a temporal comparison followed by an assumption of causation.
The Court is likewise persuaded that these opinions present substantial risks of jury confusion under Rule 403.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant Vault E&S Insurance Company’s motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Plaintiff’s vocational expert, Allison Shipp Berry.
Key Takeaway
Berry was not permitted to testify regarding alleged net-income losses suffered by McReynolds Anesthesia, P.A., or to offer opinions calculating business-income damages based upon the practice’s profit-and-loss statements. Those opinions exceed the scope of her demonstrated vocational expertise and are not supported by a sufficiently reliable methodology under Rule 702. Moreover, because the opinions risk conflating Plaintiff’s individual earning-capacity claim with the financial performance of a separate business entity, any limited probative value they may possess is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing or misleading the jury.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | McReynolds V. Vault E&S Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 1:24cv173 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Mississippi Northern |
| Order Date: | May 12, 2026 |
Leave a Reply