Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A patient received treatment for diabetes at VA facilities from 2016 to 2022. In early 2020, he reported worsening symptoms and expressed dissatisfaction with his medical care, believing negligence contributed to his condition. Two years later, he filed a complaint with the Office of the Inspector General, alleging improper diagnosis and treatment at VA facilities. He also submitted a Standard Form-95 (SF-95) to the Office of the General Counsel, naming himself as claimant and his wife as a witness and property owner. The agency denied his claim, and he was informed of his right to sue. The couple then filed a pro se lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging negligent medical care caused kidney disease. Subsequently, the wife filed her own SF-95, asserting power of attorney, but the agency denied this claim as duplicative and because the couple had already sought judicial remedy.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, following a magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the wife’s claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, dismissed both plaintiffs’ claims as time-barred, and denied leave to amend as futile. The plaintiffs objected, but the district court adopted the recommendations and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the district court erred in finding the wife failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her property damage claim, because the administrative filing gave sufficient notice for that claim. However, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal on the alternative ground that all claims were barred by the FTCA’s statute of limitations, as the plaintiffs’ injuries and property damages were or should have been known more than two years before the administrative claims were filed. The denial of leave to amend was also affirmed. View "Ellsworth v. Dallas Texas Department of Veteran Affairs" on Justia Law

OneTaste, Inc., a company founded in 2004 that promoted “orgasmic meditation,” sued Netflix for defamation in 2023. The lawsuit was based on a Netflix documentary that featured allegations from former employee Ayries Blanck, who claimed she was sexually assaulted and abused in connection with her employment and participation in OneTaste’s activities. The documentary included statements from Blanck’s sister and other former associates, as well as references to earlier media investigations and reports about alleged exploitative and abusive practices at OneTaste. OneTaste asserted that Netflix published false statements with actual malice, despite being provided with information it claimed disproved the allegations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed Netflix’s special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16). Netflix argued its conduct was protected activity and that OneTaste could not demonstrate a probability of prevailing, especially on the element of actual malice. After considering the pleadings and both parties’ evidence, the trial court concluded that OneTaste failed to present sufficient evidence that Netflix published the challenged statements with actual malice. The court also found OneTaste’s additional evidence did not establish that Netflix was aware of probable falsity or recklessly disregarded the truth. As a result, the court granted Netflix’s motion to strike the complaint.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that OneTaste did not meet its burden to show a probability of prevailing on the defamation claim because it failed to produce evidence of actual malice by Netflix. The court also rejected OneTaste’s constitutional and public policy challenges to the anti-SLAPP statute and denied its requests for judicial notice of materials not considered by the trial court. View "Onetaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc." on Justia Law

David Ray Gunter, who had a mechanical heart valve and required daily anticoagulant medication (Coumadin), was arrested and detained at two North Carolina county jails. During his detention, Gunter did not consistently receive his prescribed medication, missing doses over several days due to failures by the contracted medical provider and jail staff. After his release, he suffered serious medical complications, including blood clots and subsequent surgeries. Gunter alleged these injuries were the result of inadequate medical care during his incarceration.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted summary judgment for defendants on Gunter’s constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including deliberate indifference and Monell claims, finding insufficient evidence that jail officials or contracted medical providers acted with deliberate indifference or that county policies caused the deprivation. The district court also granted summary judgment to Southern Health Partners, Inc. (SHP) on the medical malpractice claim, finding that Gunter’s expert testimony did not establish a breach of the standard of care by SHP, and excluded expert evidence it found speculative. However, the district court found genuine disputes of fact regarding medical malpractice claims against two individual medical providers, but ultimately found no proximate cause. The district court denied Gunter’s motion to compel deposition of the defendants’ expert as untimely and granted a motion to strike a post-deposition declaration from Gunter’s expert.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Gunter’s deliberate indifference claim against the medical provider defendants, the Monell claim against the counties, and the medical malpractice claims against SHP and two medical providers, holding that genuine disputes of material fact remained. The appellate court also reversed the exclusion of certain expert testimony and the grant of the motion to strike, but affirmed the denial of the motion to compel. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Swink v. Southern Health Partners Inc." on Justia Law

Mark Stanford, an incapacitated resident of a Mississippi nursing facility, suffered severe burns after starting a fire in his room. The Mississippi State Department of Health determined that the nursing center failed to adequately supervise Stanford and maintain a safe environment, citing the facility for violating federal regulations regarding the safety and supervision of residents. Stanford, through his conservator, brought a lawsuit alleging negligence and medical malpractice against the nursing facility and related entities.Brandon Nursing and Rehabilitation Center moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed in 2017 by Stanford’s brother, Russell Phillips, who acted as Stanford’s health surrogate during his admission. Stanford opposed arbitration, arguing that the agreement was invalid because Phillips lacked authority under Mississippi’s Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act to bind Stanford, since Stanford’s adult son—a higher-priority family member under the statute—was reasonably available and willing to serve as surrogate. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi held that Phillips was not a proper surrogate under the statute and denied the motion to compel arbitration.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied de novo review to both the denial of arbitration and interpretation of state law. The Fifth Circuit determined that the key issue was whether, under Mississippi’s Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act, a health care provider must ensure that no higher-priority family member is “reasonably available” before accepting decisions from a lower-priority family member acting as surrogate. Noting the statutory ambiguity and lack of controlling Mississippi precedents, the Fifth Circuit did not resolve the merits but instead certified this question of state law to the Mississippi Supreme Court for authoritative interpretation. View "Stanford v. Brandon Nursing" on Justia Law

A fatal motor-vehicle collision occurred on September 23, 2021, when Cody Conboy, an employee of Comfort Systems USA (Arkansas), Inc., crossed the center line while driving from his home to a remote jobsite. The accident resulted in the deaths of Tammy Gardner and five-year-old Christopher Skala, and injuries to three-year-old Xavior Skala. Conboy regularly traveled to various worksites as part of his employment, and his employer provided compensation for travel or per diem. The estates of the decedents and the guardian for the injured child initiated legal action against Comfort Systems and Conboy, alleging both direct and vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.The Independence County Circuit Court consolidated the related cases and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Comfort Systems. The circuit court concluded that the “going-and-coming” rule, which bars liability for accidents occurring during an employee’s commute, should apply not only in workers’ compensation cases but also in tort cases involving employer liability. The circuit court found that Conboy was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and that Comfort Systems had no control over his travel. Consequently, all claims against Comfort Systems were dismissed with prejudice, while claims against Conboy remained pending.The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, and after further appellate proceedings, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case. The Supreme Court held that the going-and-coming rule from workers’ compensation law does not govern tort cases involving respondeat superior liability. Instead, Arkansas courts must apply traditional respondeat superior analysis to determine if an employee was acting within the scope of employment. The Supreme Court further found that summary judgment was improper because reasonable minds could differ as to whether Conboy was acting within the scope of his employment. The court also held it was error to grant summary judgment on direct-liability claims where no such relief was requested. The case was reversed and remanded, and the court of appeals’ opinion vacated. View "SKALA v. COMFORT SYSTEMS USA, INC." on Justia Law

Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the New York Legislature enacted Article 8-A of the Workers' Compensation Law to allow both employees and volunteers who participated in rescue, recovery, and cleanup operations at designated sites to seek compensation for health conditions resulting from exposure to hazardous materials. In this case, a volunteer who had received lifetime workers’ compensation benefits for conditions contracted during his service died in July 2016. His spouse filed a claim for death benefits with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) more than two years after his death.A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded death benefits to the claimant. However, after administrative review requested by the Uninsured Employers’ Fund, the WCB disallowed the award, concluding that the death benefits claim was untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28’s two-year statute of limitations. The Board found that Article 8-A did not exempt such claims from the two-year limit, and that the claim was not for an occupational disease. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the statutory extension for filing claims under Article 8-A (Workers’ Compensation Law § 168) applies only to claims filed by “participants” themselves, not by their survivors or beneficiaries. The dissent would have remitted the matter for further proceedings under Workers’ Compensation Law § 163, regarding notice requirements.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. The Court held that the statutory extension of time for filing certain claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 168 applies solely to claims brought by statutorily defined “participants,” and not to claims brought by their survivors or beneficiaries. Consequently, the spouse’s claim for death benefits was barred by the two-year limitation period in Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. View "Matter of Garcia v WTC Volunteer" on Justia Law

A passenger at a metro station, who was noticeably intoxicated, accidentally fell from the station platform into a non-public area—a trough housing electrical equipment—after stumbling and attempting to sit on a narrow parapet. The fall resulted in immobilizing injuries that compromised his breathing. Although the station manager was required by operating procedures to perform visual inspections of the platform at set intervals, it is disputed whether those inspections were performed and whether they included checking behind the parapet. The passenger remained undiscovered for four days and died from asphyxiation. Experts opined he would have survived if found and aided promptly.The decedent’s parents and estate sued the transit authority for negligence and wrongful death in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the authority’s failure to discover and aid him aggravated his injuries and led to his death. The district court initially denied summary judgment for the transit authority, but later granted it on the grounds of contributory negligence, finding the decedent’s intoxication and actions barred recovery as a matter of law. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that under District law, common carriers owe passengers a duty of care even where contributory negligence is present, but recognizing uncertainty as to whether this duty applies once a passenger becomes a trespasser by entering a non-public area involuntarily.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, answering a certified question from the D.C. Circuit, held that a passenger who unintentionally enters a non-public area becomes a trespasser. However, if the common carrier knows or has reason to know the trespasser is injured, trapped, or imperiled, it owes a duty of ordinary care—including a reasonable duty to aid—to prevent further injury. This duty is fact-specific and does not arise for undiscovered trespassers. View "Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority" on Justia Law

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