uniform principles of general maritime law. Compare Mullen, 186 F.3d at 626 (noting that where each of the class member’s claims arose under a single body of law, and no “complex choice-of-law issues” were present, predominance was satisfied), with Castano, 84 F.3d at 741-44 (explaining that a multitude of choice of law issues may, in certain situations, recommend against class certification). Nor are there individualized damage issues that overwhelm the common issues concerning liability. Class Members’ damages differ only in their qualification for Specified Physical Condition compensation. It is well-settled, however, that the necessity of calculating damages on an individual basis does not defeat predominance. See Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532, 544 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); see also Bell Atl. Corp., 339 F.3d at 306
holding that a common question of causation was a predominate issue central to each of plaintiffs claims and subject to generalize proof notwithstanding need to review each plaintiffs individual account holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case holding that assertions of privilege must normally be raised as to each record sought and each question asked so that  the court can rule with specificity holding that there is no need for the agency to supply affidavits from each individual who participated in the actual search holding that an administrator need not address each piece of evidence