Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

An 18-year-old driver, Elijah Henry, collided with Melanie Gilliland’s vehicle after running a red light, causing her severe injuries. At the time of the accident, Henry was being followed by Officer Matthew Harvey of the City of Pleasanton Police Department. Officer Harvey had entered a parking lot to investigate possible vehicle break-ins and, upon seeing Henry’s car leave the lot, made a U-turn to follow it. Henry, who had smoked marijuana earlier, accelerated away, fearing police interaction but denying any belief that he was being pursued for arrest. Officer Harvey did not activate his lights or siren and testified that he did not initiate a pursuit under the City’s vehicular pursuit policy.Gilliland sued both Henry and the City for negligence. The City asserted immunity under California Vehicle Code section 17004.7, which protects public entities from liability for damages caused by fleeing suspects if the entity has a compliant vehicular pursuit policy and provides regular training. The Alameda County Superior Court initially denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding that neither an actual nor perceived pursuit occurred under the City’s policy definition. However, after a bench trial before a different judge, the court found the City immune, interpreting “pursued” in the statute according to its ordinary meaning rather than the policy’s definition, and concluded Henry believed he was being pursued.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and held that the definition of “pursuit” in the public entity’s vehicular pursuit policy governs both actual and perceived pursuits under section 17004.7. The court found the trial court erred by applying the ordinary meaning of “pursued” and reversed the judgment, remanding for further proceedings using the correct legal standard. The main holding is that statutory immunity under section 17004.7 depends on the policy’s definition of pursuit, not the word’s general meaning. View "Gilliland v. City of Pleasanton" on Justia Law

After a 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident caused by a drunk driver, his parents, who were no longer together, each filed separate wrongful death lawsuits. The mother and father’s cases were consolidated and settled before trial, but they could not agree on how to divide the settlement proceeds. The law firm holding the funds initiated an interpleader action to have the court determine the appropriate division. The parents had a complicated history, including periods of estrangement, custody disputes, and issues related to drug use and financial support.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, held an evidentiary hearing and ultimately awarded 75% of the net settlement proceeds to the mother and 25% to the father. The court based its decision on findings that the father had failed to fulfill his parental and legal obligations, including not paying child support, misusing disability payments intended for the child, and engaging in illegal drug use with his son. The court found that the mother had provided more consistent emotional and financial support. The father appealed, arguing that he was entitled to half of the proceeds and that the court erred by considering his past conduct rather than the proper legal standard for wrongful death damages.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the district court erred by not applying the correct legal standard. The Supreme Court clarified that wrongful death damages are forward-looking and intended to compensate for the loss of future support, companionship, and other benefits the decedent would have provided. The court found that the district court improperly based its apportionment on the parents’ past conduct rather than their respective losses. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Rossman Law Group, PLLC v. Holcomb and Carraway" on Justia Law

Adria Snover, represented by her spouse and guardian ad litem, suffered permanent brain injury and entered a coma following complications during a cesarean section. She sued Dr. Aruna Gupta, Riverside Community Hospital, and another doctor, alleging negligent diagnosis and treatment. Before trial, Snover settled with the hospital for $2.5 million and with the other doctor for $1 million. The hospital’s settlement included $250,000 allocated to Snover’s son for waiving a potential future wrongful death claim. The case proceeded to trial solely against Dr. Gupta.A jury in the Riverside County Superior Court awarded Snover $17,458,474 in total damages: $7,458,474 in economic damages and $10 million in noneconomic damages. The jury found Gupta 15 percent at fault, the other doctor 80 percent, and a nurse 5 percent. After trial, the court applied the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) cap to the noneconomic damages, reducing them to $250,000, and then held Gupta liable for 15 percent of that amount ($37,500). For economic damages, the court used the Mayes rule, first applying the MICRA cap, then calculating the percentage of economic damages and applying that percentage to the settlement amounts, resulting in a setoff of $3,142,750. The court did not exclude the $250,000 allocated to Snover’s son from the setoff calculation.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court correctly applied the MICRA cap before apportioning liability for noneconomic damages among health care providers, consistent with Gilman v. Beverly California Corp. and Rashidi v. Moser. The court also affirmed the use of the Mayes rule for calculating the economic damages setoff and found no abuse of discretion in including the $250,000 allocated to Snover’s son. The judgment was affirmed. View "Snover v. Gupta" on Justia Law

A patient underwent a laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation and endometrial ablation performed by a physician at a women’s clinic. About a week after the procedure, she experienced severe abdominal pain and was hospitalized for sepsis. An exploratory surgery revealed a perforated small bowel, which was surgically repaired. The patient subsequently recovered.The patient filed a medical negligence lawsuit in the Hinds County Circuit Court against the clinic and the physician, attaching the required certificate of expert consultation to her complaint. The defendants moved for summary judgment, supporting their motion with an expert affidavit. The plaintiff did not timely file an expert affidavit or testimony in response. On the day before the scheduled summary judgment hearing, she filed a response without any expert affidavit. The circuit court denied the summary judgment motion and granted her an additional thirty days to obtain an expert affidavit. After she submitted an expert affidavit and a second hearing was held, the circuit court again denied summary judgment, finding that the competing expert affidavits created a genuine issue of material fact.On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the circuit court’s denial of summary judgment de novo and its grant of additional time for abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that, in medical malpractice cases, a plaintiff must produce sworn expert testimony to survive summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide such testimony before the initial hearing and that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting additional time without a specific finding of diligence or good faith. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Lakeland Premier Women's Clinic, PLLC v. Jackson" on Justia Law

A woman with COVID-19 and multiple underlying health conditions was admitted to a hospital and then transferred to a skilled nursing facility for ongoing treatment. During her stay at the facility, she was under the care of a physician who prescribed various treatments for her COVID-19 infection. Despite these interventions, her condition deteriorated, and she developed additional complications, including pressure wounds and dehydration. After being discharged from the facility without hospice or home health arrangements, she was readmitted to the hospital, where her condition continued to decline. She was eventually discharged home under hospice care and died shortly thereafter. Her surviving spouse filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging that the facility and physician were negligent in her care.The District Court of Garfield County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that they were immune from liability under both the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparation (PREP) Act and Oklahoma’s COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Limited Liability Act. The district court reasoned that the acts and omissions in question were incident to the provision of care for a COVID-19 patient and thus fell within the scope of the immunity statutes. The plaintiff appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case de novo. It held that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of immunity. The court found that the defendants failed to provide evidence establishing a causal relationship between the administration or use of covered countermeasures and the plaintiff’s injuries, as required for PREP Act immunity. Additionally, the court determined that the defendants did not meet the evidentiary burden to show the requisite impact under the state COVID-19 Act, and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding gross negligence. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "AUSTBO v. GREENBRIAR" on Justia Law

A mother, acting on behalf of her mentally incapacitated adult daughter, brought suit against a hospital, its health partners, and a registered nurse after her daughter suffered an anoxic brain injury. The injury occurred when the nurse, while cleaning the patient, dislodged the patient’s cuffed tracheostomy tube, which had been placed to treat COVID-19 pneumonia. The tube was out for approximately seven minutes, resulting in cardiac arrest and brain injury. The patient had been admitted with COVID-19 and was receiving oxygen through the tracheostomy at the time of the incident.The defendants moved to dismiss the case in the District Court of Oklahoma County, arguing that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparation (PREP) Act provided them immunity from suit and liability, thereby depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court considered documentary evidence submitted by the defendants and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff appealed, and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, in a split decision, reversed the district court, finding that the trial court had jurisdiction and that the defendants were not immune from suit.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case on certiorari. It held that the cuffed tracheostomy was a “covered countermeasure” under the PREP Act, the claims had a causal relationship with the administration and use of that countermeasure, and the defendants qualified as “covered persons.” The court found that the PREP Act confers both immunity from liability and suit for such claims, except for willful misconduct, which must be brought exclusively in federal court. Therefore, Oklahoma courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "FRANKLIN v. OU MEDICINE" on Justia Law

The case concerns the medical treatment of a fifty-eight-year-old man who suffered a shoulder injury and subsequently died from septic shock, acute septic arthritis, metabolic acidosis, and renal failure. After his initial visit to the emergency department, he was diagnosed with rotator cuff tendinitis and cellulitis, and discharged with antibiotics. His condition worsened over several weeks, leading to multiple emergency department visits and consultations with various medical providers, including nurse practitioner Michael Collins. Collins attended to the patient on August 4-5, 2020, and discharged him after administering fluids and pain medication, advising follow-up with orthopedics. The patient returned to the hospital two days later in a deteriorated state, was diagnosed with sepsis and septic arthritis, and died shortly thereafter.The plaintiff, acting as personal representative of the decedent’s estate, filed a medical malpractice action in the Massachusetts Superior Court against several providers, including Collins. The plaintiff submitted an offer of proof supported by medical records and expert opinion, alleging that Collins failed to meet the standard of care by not recognizing symptoms of septic arthritis, failing to order appropriate imaging and bloodwork, and not admitting the patient for further treatment. Collins and other defendants requested a medical malpractice tribunal under G. L. c. 231, § 60B. The tribunal found the plaintiff’s evidence insufficient to raise a legitimate question of liability against Collins, leading to dismissal of the claims after the plaintiff did not post the required bond.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the tribunal’s decision. It held that the tribunal erred in finding the plaintiff’s offer of proof insufficient, as the expert opinion was factually based and rooted in the medical records, and adequately raised a legitimate question of liability and causation. The Court vacated the judgment of dismissal, allowing the plaintiff’s claims against Collins to proceed without posting a bond. View "Bennett v. Collins" on Justia Law

After a fatal car accident involving a 2008 Lexus ES350, the driver, whose wife died in the crash, sued Toyota, alleging the vehicle was defective due to unintended acceleration. His case was added to a coordinated group of California state court proceedings (JCCP) involving similar claims against Toyota. The coordinated proceedings had established a Common Benefit Fund, requiring all plaintiffs whose cases resolved after a certain date to pay an 8 percent assessment from their recoveries. This fund compensated lead counsel for work that benefited all plaintiffs, such as shared discovery and expert work.The plaintiff’s case was coordinated with the JCCP in 2018. After settling with Toyota, he moved in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to exempt his case from the 8 percent assessment, arguing he did not use or benefit from the shared work product and that his case was factually distinct. The Committee overseeing the fund opposed, submitting evidence that the plaintiff’s original attorney had relied on common benefit materials and that the issues in his case overlapped with those in the coordinated proceedings. The trial court found the plaintiff had not met his burden to show he was entitled to an exemption and denied his motion for relief from the assessment.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, held that the order denying relief was appealable as a collateral order. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that neither he nor his counsel benefited from the common work product. The court found the assessment applied, as the plaintiff’s case fell within the scope of the coordination order and he did not prove entitlement to an exemption. The order requiring the 8 percent assessment was affirmed. View "Pruchnik v. JCCP4621 Common Benefit Committee" on Justia Law

A group of companies that are frequently sued in asbestos litigation brought an action against several settlement trusts and a claims processing facility. These trusts were established as part of bankruptcy reorganizations by former asbestos manufacturers to handle and pay out current and future asbestos-related claims. The plaintiffs rely on information held by these trusts—specifically, data about claimants’ other asbestos exposures—to defend themselves in ongoing and anticipated lawsuits. In January 2025, the trusts announced new document retention policies that would result in the destruction of most existing claims data after one year, which the plaintiffs argued would severely impair their ability to defend against asbestos claims and seek contribution or indemnification from the trusts.Previously, the trusts notified claimants of the impending data destruction, and the plaintiffs, upon learning of this, requested that the trusts not implement the new policies. When the trusts refused, the plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, seeking a declaratory judgment that the trusts have a duty to preserve the claims data and a permanent injunction to prevent the destruction of this information. The trusts moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that the complaint failed to state a claim.The Court of Chancery denied the motions to dismiss. It held that it had subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and because the case fit within the court’s traditional equitable powers, including the authority to grant a bill of discovery to preserve evidence for use in litigation. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing, as they faced a concrete and imminent injury from the threatened destruction of data essential to their defense and contribution claims. The court also held that the complaint stated a claim for relief, allowing the case to proceed beyond the pleading stage. View "DBMP LLC v. Delaware Claims Processing Facility, LLC" on Justia Law

David and Bonnie Faulk, residents of Alaska, purchased over one hundred windows from Spenard Builders Supply for their custom-built home and alleged that the windows, manufactured by JELD-WEN, were defective in breach of an oral warranty. They filed a class action in Alaska state court against Spenard Builders Supply, an Alaska corporation, and JELD-WEN, a Delaware corporation, asserting state-law claims. The defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which allows federal jurisdiction based on minimal diversity in class actions.After removal, the Faulks amended their complaint to remove all class action allegations and sought to remand the case to state court. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska denied their motion to remand, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent that held federal jurisdiction under CAFA is determined at the time of removal and is not affected by post-removal amendments. The district court allowed the amendment to eliminate class allegations but ultimately dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, finding most claims time-barred and one insufficiently pled.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, which held that federal jurisdiction depends on the operative complaint, including post-removal amendments. The Ninth Circuit concluded that, after the Faulks removed their class action allegations, the sole basis for federal jurisdiction under CAFA was eliminated, and complete diversity was lacking. The court vacated the district court’s order dismissing the complaint and remanded with instructions to remand the case to state court unless another basis for federal jurisdiction is established. View "FAULK V. JELD-WEN, INC." on Justia Law