Halil Suleyman Ozerden — judge journal: record, career & affiliations — IJR

Halil Suleyman Ozerden — judge journal: record, career & affiliations — IJR

Decision record

Full record (9) →

ATLANTIC SOUNDING COMPANY, INC. v. Vickers
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2011-02-25 · cited 2×
This case involved a dispute between employer Atlantic Sounding Company and employee Jimmie Vickers over Vickers' entitlement to maintenance and cure benefits under admiralty law following an alleged workplace injury on May 18, 2009, while operating a vessel in Louisiana. Atlantic filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that Vickers was not entitled to further benefits because he had reached maximum medical improvement and abandoned treatment. Vickers counterclaimed for ongoing maintenance, cure, wages, and sanctions, though he dismissed his Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims before trial. After a bench trial, the court found that Vickers was injured in the line of duty but had abandoned scheduled physical therapy and reached maximum medical improvement by January 7, 2010, relieving Atlantic of any further obligations. The court granted Atlantic's requested declaratory relief, dismissed the counterclaim, and denied sanctions.
labor & employmentprocedure
Previto v. Ryobi North America, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2010-12-16 · cited 4×
In Previto v. Ryobi North America, Inc., the defendants filed a motion to limit or exclude testimony from three of the plaintiff's designated expert witnesses—an expert in human factors, a vocational rehabilitation expert, and an ophthalmologist—on the grounds that they lacked the necessary qualifications or that their opinions were unreliable. The court applied the Daubert standard under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires that expert testimony be based on sufficient facts or data, derived from reliable principles and methods, and applied reliably to the facts of the case. After reviewing the experts' qualifications and proposed opinions, the court granted the motion in full, excluding specific opinions on topics such as accident reconstruction, design defects, psychological assessments, and certain medical causation claims related to the plaintiff's eye injury. The ruling focused solely on the admissibility of the challenged expert testimony and did not address the underlying claims or the experts' roles as treating physicians.
proceduretorts & liability
Puckett v. Epps
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2009-03-30 · cited 2×
Jackson v. Balboa Insurance
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2008-12-15
Masztal v. Meritplan Insurance
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2008-11-12 · cited 1×
Kulpa v. OM Financial Life Insurance
District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2008-04-28 · cited 2×