Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Plaintiffs on their claim that Missouri Delta Medical Center (MDMC) and two physicians it employed caused their father's death, holding that no error occurred.Plaintiffs, as family representatives, brought this suit for the wrongful death of Decedent, raising issues related to Decedent's need for surgery and the quality of his post-surgical care, which led to his death. The jury returned a verdict in Plaintiffs' favor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs submitted substantial evidence to support the submission of aggravating circumstances damages to the jury; (2) the circuit court did not err in submitting the instruction for aggravating circumstances damages; (3) Plaintiffs established "but for" causation; and (4) Plaintiffs were not entitled to reversal on their remaining claims of error. View "Rhoden v. Winfield" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court made permanent a preliminary writ of prohibition preventing the circuit court from allowing Plaintiffs' claims against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen Research & Development (collectively, Defendants) in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to transfer the claims of those injured outside of the City of St. Louis.Multiple plaintiffs filed this action stating various causes of action arising from the sale and use of Risperdal, a prescription drug. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on improper venue and forum non conveniens for all plaintiffs not injured in the City of St. Louis. The circuit court overruled the motion. Defendants then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus asking that the claims of the plaintiffs whose injuries allegedly occurred in Missouri counties other than the City of St. Louis be transferred. The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition, holding (1) Mo. R. Civ. P. 52.05(a) cannot be used to confer venue in a forum that is otherwise improper, and newly enacted Mo. Rev. Stat. 508.013.1 did not alter the result on these facts; and (2) the circuit court's failure to transfer the claims of those injured outside of the City of St. Louis was an abuse of discretion. View "State ex rel. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Honorable Michael Noble" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) and C.R. Bard Inc. on Plaintiff's claims related to Defendants' design and manufacture of polypropylene mesh slings that were surgically implanted in Plaintiff, holding that any errors were not prejudicial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in excluding evidence of Bard's prior convictions; (2) the circuit court erred by not sustaining Plaintiff's objections to BSC's and Bard's use of her claims brought in the original petition against former defendants, but the errors were not prejudicial; and (3) the circuit court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff's request for a mistrial after Bard displayed to the jury prejudicial evidence of Plaintiff's settlements with the dismissed defendants. View "Sherrer v. Boston Scientific Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court reducing Plaintiff's personal injury award against Bi-State Development Agency (hereinafter, "Metro") to comply with the statutory cap set forth for public entities afforded sovereign immunity pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.610, holding that there is no conflict between section 537.610 and Mo. Rev. Stat. 70.439's adopted federal regulations.Plaintiff was injured when a Metro Call-A-Ride bus collided with Plaintiff's school bus. The jury awarded Plaintiff $1.878 million in damages. Metro filed a motion for remittitur, asserting that the award should be reduced pursuant to section 537.610, which sets the liability limitations for public entities. The circuit court sustained the motion and reduced the damage award to the statutory maximum plus interest. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that section 537.610 conflicts with section 70.249 because the latter statute adopted specific federal regulations and was enacted after section 537.610. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there is no conflict between section 537.610's plain statutory language providing for a damages cap and section 70.439 providing that Metro needs to comply with federal safety regulations to receive state funding. View "Moore v. Bi-State Development Agency" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court entering partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the issue of liability, holding that the circuit court did not err in entering summary judgment on the issue of liability in Plaintiff's favor.After he mobile home caught on fire Plaintiff sued several defendants, including Mehrdad Fotoohighiam, alleging that Fotoohighiam and the other defendants conspired to set her home on fire, causing her mental and physical harm and property damage. The circuit court entered partial summary judgment as to liability in Plaintiff's favor. After a jury trial on the issue of damages only the jury returned a verdict of $250,000 in actual damages and $2,500,000 in punitive damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that the uncontroverted material facts established Plaintiff's right to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. View "Green v. Fotoohighiam" on Justia Law

In this wrongful death action, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Mercy Hospital Joplin due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed Mercy Hospital.On appeal, Plaintiffs conceded that the statute of limitations had run prior to the filing of their claim against Mercy Hospital. Plaintiffs, however, argued that the one-year savings statute that applies to nonsuits applied in this case because they had taken nonsuit against Mercy Hospital less than one year before filing the instant action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs did not suffer a nonsuit against Mercy Hospital but, rather, substituted Mercy Clinic, LLC under Rule 55.33(c) in place of Mercy Hospital even though the limitations period had already expired; (2) Plaintiffs' substitution of Mercy Clinic in place of Mercy Hospital was not a nonsuit entitling them to the benefit of the one-year savings provision; and (3) therefore, the action against Mercy Hospital was time barred. View "Sofia v. Dodson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding that Fredric Prater was liable for $20,000 in damages after a car accident with Denise Kappel, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the rental car Kappel was driving at the time of the accident.Denise was at a stop when Prater drove into her rental car from behind. Denise and her husband (the Kappels) sued Prater for negligence. At trial, the circuit court admitting into evidence, over the Kappels' objection, photographs showing the post-accident damage to the front of his car and the rear of the rental car Denise was driving. The jury found Prater liable for negligence and awarded $20,000 in damages, significantly less than the $650,000 the Kappels sought. The Kappels appealed, arguing that the photographs should not have been admitted because their quality was too low and because there was no expert evidence connecting the amount of damage to Denise's vehicle to the issue of whether the collision caused the injuries she claimed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs. View "Kappel v. Prater" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying Employee's workers' compensation benefits on the grounds that she failed to prove her work injury was the prevailing or primary factor causing any permanent disability and denying Employee's claim against the Second Injury Fund as moot, holding that the Commission did not err.Employee was exposed to cypermethrin, an insecticide, while working for Employer. When Employee was at the doctor's office for testing, another patient's dog got loose and tripped Employee. Employee fell and allegedly sustained permanent injuries to her knees, lower back, hip and neck. Employee filed a claim for workers' compensation asserting that, in addition to cypermethrin exposure, she sustained injuries from being tripped while walking out of the doctor's office. An ALJ awarded Employee benefits. The Commission reversed, concluding that Employee failed to meet her burden of proving her exposure to cypermethrin was the prevailing or primary factor in causing any alleged injury from being tripped accidentally. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Employee was not entitled to workers' compensation for any injury sustained from her accidental tripping; and (2) because Employee's accidental tripping did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, the Fund was not implicated. View "Schoen v. Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying Appellant's claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries she suffered when she fell while entering her workplace, holding that Appellant failed to prove that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment.An administrative law judge denied Appellant any workers' compensation benefits, concluding that Appellant did not meet her burden of showing that her fall was the prevailing factor causing the conditions of which she complained. The Commission affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that her injury arose out of her employment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claim was noncompensable because she failed to prove her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment because the hazard or risk involved was one Appellant was equally exposed to in her regular, nonemployment life. View "Annayeva v. SAB of the TSD of the City of St. Louis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the labor and industrial relations commission denying Claimants' claim for enhanced mesothelioma benefits under Mo. Rev. Stat. 287.200.4(3)(a), holding that because the deceased employee's employer (Employer) did not "elect to accept mesothelioma liability," Claimants were not entitled to the enhanced benefit.The decedent died from mesothelioma cause by toxic exposure to asbestos during his employment with Employer. Prior to his death, Claimants filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits and specifically sought enhanced benefits under subdivision 287.200.4(3)(a). An administrative law judge denied the claim. The commission affirmed the denial of the enhanced benefit, concluding that an employer that ceased operations sixteen years before section 287.200.4(3)(a) took effect could not have elected to accept enhanced liability under that section. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Claimants were not entitled to the enhanced benefit because Employer did not affirmatively elect to accept liability for the enhanced benefit as required under statute. View "Hegger v. Valley Farm Dairy Co." on Justia Law