Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A former Fire Chief of the Cincinnati Fire Department, who had worked for the department since 1993 and was promoted to Fire Chief in 2021, was terminated by the City Manager in 2023 without being given a pre-termination hearing. The City Charter provided that, after serving six months as Fire Chief, the individual could only be removed for cause. When promoted, the Fire Chief signed a memorandum stating the position was “unclassified” and subject to dismissal without cause, but the Charter’s language provided for-cause protection after the first six months. The City Manager provided the Fire Chief with a termination letter listing reasons for the firing and publicized the termination, including to the media, citing the reasons as “for cause.” The Fire Chief did not receive a pre-termination or post-termination hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied summary judgment to the City Manager and the City, holding that the City Manager was not entitled to qualified immunity regarding pre-termination due process violations. The court found that, under the Charter, the Fire Chief had a property interest in continued employment after six months and that there were unresolved factual disputes regarding waiver of those rights. The district court also denied statutory immunity to the City Manager on the Fire Chief’s state law defamation claim, finding triable issues regarding whether her statements were knowingly false or made with malice.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Sixth Circuit held that the City Charter unambiguously gave the Fire Chief for-cause removal protection after six months, creating a property interest protected by procedural due process. It found that no “clear and unmistakable” waiver of those rights was effected by the memorandum. The court also held that sufficient evidence existed for a jury to decide whether the City Manager acted with malice or bad faith in making allegedly defamatory statements. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Washington v. City of Cincinnati" on Justia Law

A worker was severely injured while operating a piece of agricultural machinery at his place of employment. The machine’s power take-off (PTO) shaft, which should have been equipped with safety guards, lacked those guards at the time of the accident. The worker alleged that the absence of these safety guards was due to his employer’s deliberate removal, and that this action directly caused his injuries. He sued his employer for an intentional tort under Ohio law, specifically invoking a statutory provision that creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to injure when an employer deliberately removes an equipment safety guard and an injury results.The Madison County Court of Common Pleas denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the employer had deliberately removed the safety guard. The case proceeded to trial, where the jury heard evidence about the condition of the machinery, the employer’s repair practices, and the employer’s responses to safety concerns. The jury found in favor of the worker, awarding significant compensatory damages for his injuries. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence did not support a finding of deliberate removal as a matter of law, and that the statutory presumption did not apply unless the employer both removed the guard and made a conscious decision not to replace it.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. It held that when reviewing the denial of summary judgment after a trial, appellate courts must consider the full trial record, not just the pretrial record. The court further held that the statutory presumption applies when there is evidence of deliberate removal of a safety guard, and that courts may not require proof of a separate, additional decision not to replace the guard. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this holding. View "Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C." on Justia Law

A woman employed as an office support technician with the FBI underwent carpal tunnel surgery on her right hand in January 2017, performed by an orthopedic surgeon. After the surgery, she continued to experience symptoms such as numbness, pain, and decreased grip strength. Her physician reassured her that these ongoing symptoms were normal and that she was healing well. She continued therapy and work with certain restrictions but did not realize the surgery might have been unsuccessful until 2021, when another physician diagnosed her with an incomplete release of her transverse carpal ligament during the original surgery. She subsequently underwent a corrective surgery.The Superior Court of San Diego County granted summary judgment in favor of the surgeon and his medical group, finding the plaintiff’s claims barred by the statute of limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5. The court reasoned that her postoperative symptoms in 2017 were sufficient to trigger the three-year limitations period, which had expired before she filed suit in July 2022. The plaintiff appealed, arguing there were triable issues of fact regarding when she knew or should have known of the alleged injury and its negligent cause.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed the summary judgment. The Court of Appeal held that triable issues of material fact remained as to when the plaintiff’s injury became sufficiently appreciable to trigger the statute of limitations and when she knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known the cause of her injury was the 2017 surgery. The court concluded that summary judgment was improper because reasonable minds could differ on when the statute began to run. The judgment was reversed, and costs on appeal were awarded to the appellants. View "Godshall v. Peterson" on Justia Law

A physician who operated an addiction clinic was indicted on multiple counts of unlawfully prescribing controlled substances to five undercover law enforcement officers and four actual patients, as well as several counts of obstruction of justice for altering patient records after being indicted. At trial, four former patients testified that the physician prescribed drugs to them following minimal or inadequate medical evaluation, with several testifying to sexual misconduct or exploitation by the physician in connection with their prescriptions. Five undercover officers also testified to receiving prescriptions with little or no medical assessment, and video evidence corroborated their accounts. The prosecution further showed that after his indictment, the physician added false or misleading entries to the medical records of the undercover officers to make it appear that he had conducted more thorough evaluations than he actually had.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the physician’s motion for acquittal only as to the conspiracy count but let the case proceed on the remaining charges. A jury convicted the defendant on all remaining counts. At sentencing, the district court adopted a guidelines range of 30 to 37 months but imposed a sentence of 144 months, an upward variance, citing the physician’s sexual misconduct against patients as a significant aggravating factor. The district court explained that the guidelines did not adequately capture the seriousness of the sexual abuse committed in connection with the unlawful prescriptions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that sufficient evidence supported all convictions for unlawful prescription and obstruction of justice. The court also found that the upward variance in sentencing was reasonable, given the aggravating circumstances, and that the district court did not commit procedural or substantive error. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentence. View "USA v. Hollington" on Justia Law

A woman visiting Savannah, Georgia, with her family tripped on a raised paver on a city-owned sidewalk in the National Historic Landmark District while walking back to her hotel after a sightseeing trolley tour. She filed a lawsuit against the City of Savannah, alleging negligence. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under the Georgia Recreational Property Act, which protects landowners who make their land available for public recreational use. The trial court denied summary judgment, finding factual questions about whether the sidewalk qualified as recreational property and holding that applying the Act would violate the state constitution’s equal protection clause due to disparate treatment between tourists and residents.After the trial court allowed immediate review, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, granting summary judgment to the City. The Court of Appeals applied the test from Mercer University v. Stofer, focusing on the nature of the activity (sightseeing) and the property (a historic city sidewalk), and held that both were recreational under the Act. The court found the nature of the woman’s activity—sightseeing—was expressly covered by statute and that the property’s recreational character was established because it was a public sidewalk in a historic district with no fee for use.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case on certiorari. It reaffirmed the Stofer test but clarified that the correct inquiry is what the public is generally invited to do on the property, not what the individual plaintiff was doing at the time of injury. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred by treating the plaintiff’s particular activity as dispositive. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for proper application of the clarified test. View "MCLAMB v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF SAVANNAH" on Justia Law

After the end of their relationship, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her former boyfriend, alleging that he transmitted genital herpes to her without disclosure. During discovery, she requested extensive medical records and information spanning more than a decade, including the identification of his healthcare providers and laboratory reports. The defendant objected, invoking his right to privacy under the Georgia Constitution, and the plaintiff moved to compel production. The defendant maintained that his medical information was constitutionally protected.The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel, concluding that the medical records and information were protected by the Georgia constitutional right to privacy and that the defendant had not waived this right. The trial court did not explicitly balance the privacy right against any competing interests. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s ruling, reasoning that the hearing provided was sufficient protection for the privacy right. It held that since the plaintiff had a recognized claim and the information was not privileged under Georgia law, the trial court should have narrowly tailored discovery and considered protective orders. The appellate court remanded the case for the trial court to determine what discovery was appropriate.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to clarify the legal standard for evaluating privacy claims in civil discovery of medical records. The court held that the Georgia Constitution protects a right to privacy in medical records but rejected the application of strict scrutiny in this context. Instead, the court reaffirmed that trial courts must apply a nuanced, case-by-case balancing approach, weighing the right to privacy against competing interests, as originally described in Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co. The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded for the trial court to apply this balancing test in the first instance. View "GOODELL v. MOULTON" on Justia Law

The case centers on an incident where Joann Wright Haysbert, an academic administrator, slipped and fell while picking up an order at an Outback Steakhouse in Chesapeake, Virginia. She claimed to have suffered a traumatic brain injury and related cognitive impairments as a result of the fall, and brought a negligence lawsuit against Outback and its parent company. The litigation was marked by contentious proceedings, particularly involving her son, Attorney Nazareth Haysbert, who represented her pro hac vice.After Outback removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the first trial was declared a mistrial due to Attorney Haysbert’s repeated unprofessional conduct, including outbursts before the jury and violations of court instructions. Subsequently, his pro hac vice admission was revoked. The district court granted Dr. Haysbert's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, but imposed strict limitations on discovery for any potential refiling. When Dr. Haysbert refiled the case, further disputes arose, including the late disclosure of a new expert report and challenges during jury selection.Upon retrial, the district court excluded Dr. Haysbert’s expert witness, Dr. Filler, as a sanction for untimely disclosure of his report, and denied her Batson challenge to Outback’s use of peremptory strikes against Black potential jurors. The jury found for Outback.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court held that Dr. Haysbert lacked standing to challenge the revocation of her attorney’s pro hac vice admission based on his due process rights. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excluding Dr. Filler’s testimony as a sanction or in denying the Batson challenge, concluding that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. The judgment in favor of Outback was affirmed. View "Haysbert v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC" on Justia Law

A large group of plaintiffs, including several states, individuals, school districts, and local governments, brought suit against Meta Platforms, Inc., and associated entities, alleging that Facebook and Instagram’s design features encourage addictive behavior and inadequately protect young users from harmful content. Additional defendants included TikTok-related entities, school districts, and others. The cases were consolidated in multidistrict litigation, where plaintiffs asserted various claims, including personal injury and state law violations.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California organized the litigation into several tracks based on the nature of the claims and plaintiffs. Meta moved to dismiss certain claims, arguing that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provided them with immunity. The district court granted the dismissal in part, finding some claims barred by Section 230, but denied dismissal as to others, particularly where claims did not target Meta’s role as a publisher of third-party content. Meta sought interlocutory appeal on some orders, which the district court denied, and then appealed other orders as of right under the collateral order doctrine. TikTok entities joined in Meta’s arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether it had appellate jurisdiction to hear Meta’s and TikTok’s interlocutory appeals. The court held that Section 230 provides a defense to liability, not immunity from suit, and that the denial of such a defense is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The court found none of the requirements for a collateral order were met, emphasizing that Section 230 does not constitute a statutory or constitutional guarantee against trial. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeals and cross-appeals for lack of jurisdiction. View "STATE OF COLORADO V. META PLATFORMS, INC." on Justia Law

In 2004, a fourteen-year-old girl was sexually assaulted in Anoka County, Minnesota. She provided evidence for a rape kit, which was submitted to the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office. Detective Johnson was assigned to her case and assured her mother that no DNA was obtained, though in reality the kit was never tested. The suspect was charged but not convicted. In 2015, it was discovered that the Sheriff’s Office had hundreds of untested rape kits, including hers. Sixteen years after the assault, her kit was finally tested, revealing DNA evidence implicating the original suspect, and criminal charges were pursued again.After these events, she brought suit against Anoka County, Sheriff Stuart, and Detective Johnson in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. She asserted claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Minnesota Constitution for equal protection violations, a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a “failure to train” claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state tort claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The district court dismissed her MHRA and negligence claims but allowed the other claims to proceed, finding she had standing in light of Eighth Circuit precedent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring her federal constitutional claims for alleged failures to investigate or train, following Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedent holding that crime victims generally lack standing to challenge law enforcement or prosecutorial discretion in investigating crimes, even when alleging class-based discrimination. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment on the federal claims and remanded with instructions to dismiss those claims for lack of standing. The court remanded the IIED claim for the district court to determine whether standing existed for that state-law claim. View "Doe v. Anoka County" on Justia Law

Paul Johnson sustained severe injuries while using a drain-cleaning machine manufactured by Ridge Tool Manufacturing Company, Inc. The machine, designed to minimize user risks, included a warning label, an instruction manual, and specially designed gloves. Johnson did not read the manual or use the provided gloves, instead choosing an oversized pair from his employer. While operating the machine, his glove became entangled in the rotating cable, resulting in significant injury. Johnson brought suit against Ridge Tool, alleging strict liability, negligence, and failure to warn. He relied on two expert witnesses: Chad Jones, who opined that a safer alternative design was feasible, and Cynthia Rando, who criticized the manual and glove warnings.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois excluded both expert reports under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, finding Jones’s alternative design opinion unreliable due to lack of testing, analysis, and supporting industry data, and Rando’s report deficient for not proposing an alternative warning and for focusing on the manual Johnson never read. The district court then granted summary judgment to Ridge Tool, concluding that Johnson’s claims lacked evidentiary support after the exclusion of his experts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions for abuse of discretion regarding the exclusion of expert testimony and de novo for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed both rulings, holding that the district court properly excluded Johnson’s experts for unreliable methodologies and unsupported conclusions, and that, absent those expert opinions, Johnson’s legal theories could not survive summary judgment. The court emphasized the necessity of reliable expert evidence and alternative warnings to establish causation in failure-to-warn claims under Illinois law. The judgment was affirmed. View "Johnson v Ridge Tool Manufacturing Co." on Justia Law