Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Walter and Sylvia Chang and the Walter Chang Trust instituted an action related to the foreclosure of property on which the Changs held a purchase money mortgage. The Chang named as defendants several parties, including Eadean Buffington, the Changs' attorney, and Investors Funding, a mortgagee of the property. After the circuit court action was removed to the bankruptcy court, Integrity Escrow and Title was added as a third party defendant. The bankruptcy court granted the Changs' petition for a determination that their settlement with Investors Funding was made in good faith. Buffington and Integrity appealed the order. The bankruptcy court subsequently remanded the action to the circuit court. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) dismissed Buffington and Integrity's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's dismissal order, holding the ICA erred in concluding that (1) it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because one of the parties was in bankruptcy; (2) it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the good faith settlement order was not in the record on appeal; and (3) the good faith settlement order entered by the bankruptcy court prior to remand was not properly appealable in the state court system. Remanded.

Eshell Mitchell sued the Yuen family in circuit court for multiple injuries she received when the Yuens' dog bit her. Ms. Mitchell temporarily resided with the Yuens. Petitioner Jennifer Naipo is the half-sister of Naena Yuen. Ms. Mitchell's negligence claim was partly based on a disputed fact that the Yuens' dog had bitten Ms. Naipo several months earlier. The Yuens denied that the dog bit Ms. Naipo. Ms. Mitchell deposed Ms. Naipo, who appeared without counsel. She testified she had never been bitten, and that an injury to her forehead was not from a dog bite but from a fall. The differing testimonies lead to Ms. Mitchell issuing a subpoena duces tecum for Ms. Naipo's medical records. Ms. Naipo retained counsel and sought to quash the subpoena, claiming that the records were protected from disclosure. The trial court ordered the records be produced. Ms. Naipo petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to prevent disclosure of her medical records. The Court held that Ms. Naipo's right to privacy and her physician-patient privilege were not waived. The Court directed the lower court to quash the subpoena for Ms. Naipo's medical records.