Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the Workers' Compensation Board Appellate Division vacating the judgment of the administrative law judge (ALJ) denying Lorraine Somers's petition to have her benefits reinstated, holding that the Appellate Division did not err.The Board entered a decree permitting S.D. Warrant Company and its insurer (collectively, S.D. Warren) to discontinue paying Somers partial incapacity benefits when those payments had reached the 520-week statutory limit. Somers filed a petition to have her benefits reinstated, arguing that S.D. Warren failed to comply with Me. W.C.B. Rule, ch. 2, 5(1) (the former Rule) by not providing her with notice that she could be eligible for an extension of weekly benefits. An ALJ denied the petition. The Appellate Division vacated that decision. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that S.D. Warren was required to give Somers notice pursuant to the former Rule before terminating her benefits. View "Somers v. S.D. Warren Co." on Justia Law

In this personal injury action, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court denying the motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Portland on immunity grounds, holding that the plaza where Plaintiff was injured fell within the public building exception to governmental immunity.Plaintiff slipped and fell on a patch of ice after exiting the lobby of the Portland Police Department headquarters building. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligence. As an affirmative defense, the City asserted that it was immune from suit because the claims did not fall within an exception to immunity contained in the Maine Tort Claims Act, Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 8104-A(2). The court denied the City's motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the plaza where Plaintiff fell was an appurtenance to a public building within the meaning of the Act, and therefore, the City was not immune from Plaintiff's claims. View "McDonald v. City of Portland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court in favor of Gagne & Son Concrete Blocks, Inc. on the claims brought by Thomas and Lisa Coward that arose out of an accident at the Cowards' home involving Thomas's son, Philip Coward, holding that the court misapplied the contemporaneous perception factor as articulated in precedent regarding bystander actions.Philip died after a one-ton load of rebar fell on him while a Gagne & Son employee was unloading the rebar from a truck using a forklift. The Cowards' complaint alleged, in part, claims of bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). The Cowards argued that Thomas contemporaneously perceived the accident because he heard the accident occur, arrived seconds later, and witnessed his injured son die. The trial court entered summary judgment against Thomas on his bystander NIED claim, concluding that Thomas did not meet the contemporaneous perception factor for a bystander NIED claim. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a bystander may satisfy the "contemporaneous perception" element by demonstrating that he otherwise perceived that event as it occurred and then witnessed the immediate aftermath of that event; and (2) Gagne & Son was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. View "Coward v. Gagne & Sons Concrete Blocks, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the superior court's judgment granting, in part, Defendant's special motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint pursuant to Maine's Anti-SLAPP statute, Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 556, holding that the court erred in dismissing Count 1 of the complaint regarding Defendant's service of the notice of claim.Defendant served Plaintiffs with a notice of claim asserting, among other claims, defamation. Defendant did not file a complaint after serving the notice of claim. Plaintiffs later filed a seven-count complaint against Defendant. The superior court granted Defendant's special motion to dismiss as to two of the four counts in the amended complaint and authorized an award of attorney fees to Defendant. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) Defendant's notice of claim was not petitioning activity as defined in the Anti-SLAPP statute, and therefore, the court erred in dismissing Count 1; and (2) the court did not err in determining that it could award attorney fees to Defendant, and therefore, the cause is remanded for the trial court to decide whether an award of attorney fees is warranted as to the two remaining counts. View "Pollack v. Fournier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint for protection from harassment against Gladys Cassese, holding that Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 4654(1) does not always preclude the court from adjudicating a protection from harassment complaint without first holding a hearing.On appeal, Appellant argued that the court was required to hold a hearing before adjudicating his complaint and that, alternatively, the court erred when it dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) a court is not prohibited in all circumstances from dismissing a protection from harassment complaint without first holding a hearing; and (2) the trial court did not err in dismissing Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Anctil v. Cassese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Pat Doe's request for a ten-year extension of a protection from abuse order against Donald McLean, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.On appeal, Doe argued that the district court erred by refusing to hold a hearing on the issue of whether abuse had occurred and in declining to hold a hearing on her request for attorney fees. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court's rejection of Doe's request to treat her motion to extend as a motion to modify that included a finding of abuse was well within the court's discretion; and (2) the court's decision not to award attorney fees was not an abuse of its discretion. View "Doe v. McLean" on Justia Law

In this case involving the report of a neutral investigator - an employee of a law firm and the law firm - retained to provide a report to a governmental entity in a personnel matter, the Supreme Judicial Court held that that the employee and the law firm were protected by the employee immunity provision of the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA), Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 8108-8188.Appellee filed a claim alleging that Appellants, a law firm and its nonattorney employee, were negligent and preparing and presenting an investigative report regarding Appellee's conduct while serving as the coordinator of the University of Southern Maine's Multi-Cultural Student Affairs. The district court denied Appellants' special motion to dismiss pursuant to the anti-SLAPP law and denied Appellants' motion asserting immunity pursuant to the MTCA. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order on the special motion to dismiss and vacated the motion to dismiss on MTCA grounds, holding (1) the trial court correctly determined that the investigative report at issue in this appeal did not constitute petitioning activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute; and (2) because Appellants were performing a governmental function on behalf of a governmental entity, the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss based on MTCA immunity. View "Hamilton v. Woodsum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the summary judgment entered in the superior court in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's complaint for defamation and "slander/libel per se," holding that the superior court did not err in concluding that the statements at issue were subject to a conditional privilege.Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages in her complaint alleging defamation and slander or libel per se, alleging that Defendants terminated her contract as a registered nurse based on false allegations of patient abuse. The superior court granted a summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to both counts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to present prima facie evidence that Defendants abused the conditional privilege that otherwise protected the statements at issue; and (2) therefore, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment in their favor as to Plaintiff's claims. View "Waugh v. Genesis Healthcare LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Kathleen Flanders' appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the district court denying Flanders' motion to disqualify Attorney Eric Morse from representing Fern Gordon in a personal injury case, holding that allowing the appeal of this interlocutory order to proceed would not be in the interest of judicial economy.Gordon, the defendant in Flanders' personal injury suit, retained Attorney Morse to defend her. While the lawsuit against Gordon was pending, Flanders was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Flanders sought legal assistance from a partner of Attorney Morse, who continued to represent Gordon in the personal injury suit. Flanders moved to disqualify Attorney Morse, but the court denied the motion. Flanders appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal, holding that none of the exceptions to the final judgment rule applied in this case. View "Flanders v. Gordon" on Justia Law

In this personal injury claim based on premises liability the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the superior court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint actually constituted an action for medical negligence, holding that Plaintiff's claim was not within the ambit of the Maine Health Security Act (MHSA), Me. Rev. Stat. 24, 2501-2988.In her complaint Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries when she slipped and fell in the locker room of a facility owned and run by Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claim was actually for medical negligence, which must be brought in accordance with the procedural requirements of the MHSA. The superior court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the claim was properly brought as a premises liability claim and was not within the purview of the MHSA. View "Salerno v. Spectrum Medical Group, P.A." on Justia Law